SZGMM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2006] FCA 585

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZGMM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 585

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

SZGMM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NSD 624 of 2006

TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
27 APRIL 2006

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 624 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:	SZGMM APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	27 APRIL 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application for an extension of time to file and serve a Notice of 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 624 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

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

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	27 APRIL 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter, there is an application for an extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Smith (“the Federal Magistrate”) given on 29 September 2005. 

2. This application was filed on 27 March 2006.  There is a period of delay in the order of six months, which has not been explained by any evidence.

3. I have considered the decision of the Federal Magistrate and also the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“RRT”) and can identify no error of law or principle that would warrant interference or present any arguable case on behalf of the appellant.  When the appellant came before me this afternoon, I asked him what he wished to say in relation to the application.  The appellant responded that he had not had enough time to prepare his case.  In view of the period of time that has passed since the application was filed, I do not accept this.

4. The appellant also said that he had been moved from one detention area to another and this had impeded his preparation for the case.  Again, I do not accept that this is a proper reason for explaining the very substantial delay. 

5. More importantly, there are two grounds of appeal raised that are simply generalised assertions and present no properly formulated ground of appeal.  First, that the RRT failed to consider and properly exercise its discretionary power under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Secondly, that the judgment of the Federal Magistrate failed to consider the Tribunal decision provided no basis for reaching the result that led to the dismissal of the application before the Federal Magistrate. Nothing has been said in support of these grounds. I do not consider that they raise any arguable case and therefore I refuse to extend the time for the filing of the Notice of Appeal, as I consider that it would be futile.

6. Accordingly, I dismiss the application with costs.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin.

Associate:

Dated:             14 June 2006

The appellant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Phillips Fox
Date of Hearing:	27 April 2006
Date of Judgment:	27 April 2006