SZFIL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 1369

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFIL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1369

MIGRATION – appeal from Federal Magistrates Court – no point of principle

SZFIL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NSD 1184 OF 2005

TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
15 SEPTEMBER 2005

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1184 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:	SZFIL APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	15 SEPTEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

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 1184 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

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

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	15 SEPTEMBER 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from the orders and judgment of Federal Magistrate Scarlett given on 30 June 2005.

2. His Honour dismissed as incompetent an application for judicial review filed on 23 December 2004, seeking a review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 22 October 2002.  The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs not to grant a protection visa.

3. The appellant is a citizen of India and the ground of his application for protection under the Refugees Convention was that he was subjected to persecution because of his religious and political activities.  He claimed to have been attacked by members of the Rashtriya Sewak Sang and then arrested and beaten by police who blamed him and other members of the Dera Sacha Sauda for spreading violence. 

4. I have been taken to a detailed procedural history of the matter.  It is a long history and, in a number of instances, the appellant has failed to comply with directions of the Court and to act in accordance with the rules of the Court.

5. The Federal Magistrate, in his decision, canvassed the substance of the matters that were raised by the appellant.

6. When the appellant appeared before me today, he was unable to assist me in any way as to the exercise of the jurisdiction to review for error or as to any significant error in the decision of his Honour. 

7. The grounds of appeal set out in the Notice of Appeal filed on 18 July 2005 do not raise any substantial issue having regard to the way in which the Tribunal and the Federal Magistrate dealt with the matter.  The substance of the claims go to questions of fact and degree which are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrate and no jurisdictional error has been shown in the decision of the Tribunal.

8. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that this is a case in which there has been no error of principle or law demonstrated in the reasoning of the Federal Magistrate or of the Tribunal and, accordingly, I dismiss the appeal with costs.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin.

Associate:

Dated:            20 September 2005

The Appellant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	15 September 2005
Date of Judgment:	15 September 2005