SZFNB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 1695

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFNB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1695

MIGRATION – appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court – no error of law or principle

SZFNB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NSD 1981 OF 2005

TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
22 NOVEMBER 2005

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1981 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	SZFNB APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 NOVEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application 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 1981 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	SZFNB APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	22 NOVEMBER 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Smith delivered on 5 September 2005.  The applicant also requires an extension of time because an application for leave to appeal must be filed within 21 days and this was not done by the applicant.

2. The Federal Magistrate decided to dismiss the application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal on the basis that the applicant had not appeared at a directions hearing.  The Federal Magistrate found that ample opportunity had been given to the applicant to attend the hearing and that no explanation had been given by him for his failure to attend.

3. In an affidavit sworn on 11 October 2005, the applicant states that he did not know the prescribed time limits for an application for leave to appeal. The applicant says that he is unrepresented and that no barrister or solicitor assists him.  I accept what the applicant says.

4. If the applicant had been able to demonstrate any arguable basis for judicial intervention in relation to the decision of either the Tribunal or the Federal Magistrate, I would be inclined to grant the extension of time.  In the circumstances, however, I am not persuaded that there is any arguable basis on which to disturb or vary the decision of either the Tribunal or the Federal Magistrate.

5. When the application came on for hearing before me today, understandably, the applicant, not having any legal representation, was not able to make any helpful or useful submissions regarding any error in the decision of either the Tribunal or the Federal Magistrate, but simply requested that I review the matter. 

6. I have considered the decision of the Federal Magistrate, who reviewed the matter on the merits as well as dismissing the matter for want of appearance, and also the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.

7. I am not persuaded that there is any error of law or principle that would warrant the interference of this Court with the decision of the Tribunal or the orders made by the Federal Magistrate.  In these circumstances, the appropriate order is that the application for an extension of time be dismissed because it would serve no useful purpose.  Leave to appeal should not be allowed in the present case because no arguable basis has been suggested by the applicant and no error has been identified in the decision of the Tribunal. 

8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed 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:            7 December 2005

The Applicant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	22 November 2005
Date of Judgment:	22 November 2005