SZFEK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 1477

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFEK v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 1477

SZFEK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NSD 1136 OF 2005

EDMONDS J
14 OCTOBER 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1136 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZFEK APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	EDMONDS J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 OCTOBER 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. the appeal be dismissed;
2. the appellant pay the respondent’s costs, fixed in the sum of $2,000.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1136 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZFEK APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	EDMONDS J
DATE:	14 OCTOBER 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GIVEN EX TEMPORE
(REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT)

EDMONDS J:

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court delivered on 22 June 2005. The Federal Magistrates Court dismissed an application by the appellant for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) affirming the decision of a delegate of the respondent refusing to grant the appellant a protection visa.  The Federal Magistrates Court dismissed the application before it on the basis that there was no evidence on the face of the Tribunal's decision to indicate the Tribunal member did not conduct the hearing according to law.  The Court further found that the Tribunal's decision disclosed no reviewable error.

2. The appellant's appeal to this court raises three grounds.  First that the appellant is a real Falun Gong practitioner.  Second, that he fears persecution in his original country and third, that he was illegally detained in China.  Having read the findings and reasons given by the Tribunal for its refusal to grant a protection visa I agree with the Federal Magistrate that they disclose no reviewable error.  I also agree with the manner in which the Federal Magistrate approached and dealt with the application before him, it too does not disclose any error.

3. The grounds of appeal to this  Court merely seek to re-agitate merits review of matters which have already been decided by the Tribunal.  They do not disclose any basis upon which the claim for jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal or the Federal Magistrates Court could be maintained.  It follows in my view that the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

4. The respondent asks that I make a fixed costs order.  I will order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $2000.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Edmonds.

Associate:

Dated:            20 October 2005

The appellant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	14 October 2005
Date of Judgment:	14 October 2005