SZGVF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2006] FCA 284

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZGVF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 284

SZGVF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 155 OF 2006

WILCOX J

9 MARCH 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 155 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SZGVF
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WILCOX J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 MARCH 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application for extension of time to appeal be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed at $300.00.

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 155 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SZGVF
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	9 MARCH 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. This is an application to extend time to file and serve a notice of appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Scarlett, given on 5 October 2005. The application for extension of time was filed on 2 February 2006, almost four months later.  The Magistrate dismissed the proceeding for two reasons.  First, he noted that a period of about six years had elapsed between the date on which the Refugee Review Tribunal gave its decision adverse to the applicant and the filing of the application in the Federal Magistrates Court.  Second, the applicant had not identified any ground of jurisdictional error.  The Magistrate considered the reasons for the Tribunal for himself and could find no indication of jurisdictional error.  Therefore, the Magistrate found that the application was devoid of merit, regardless of the problem of the lengthy delay.  I respectfully agree with the learned magistrate in this regard.

2. I asked the applicant today whether he could point to any reason why an extension of time should be granted having regard to these factors.  He said he could give no reason. 

3. The application must be dismissed.  I will fix costs at $300.00.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:            22 March 2006

The Applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Ms D Watson of Australian Government Solicitor
The Second Respondent filed a Submitting Appearance.
Date of Hearing:	9 March 2006
Date of Judgment:	9 March 2006