SZHAL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 701

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZHAL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 701

MIGRATION – application for extension of time to file and serve notice of appeal dismissed

SZHAL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FMCA 22 not disturbed

SZHAL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 552 OF 2006

GYLES J
25 MAY 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 552 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SZHAL
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

GYLES J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 MAY 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for extension of time be dismissed. 

2.The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent.

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 552 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SZHAL
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE:	25 MAY 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal against a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal confirming the refusal of a protection visa (SZHAL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FMCA 22).

2. In order to obtain such an extension there is the necessity to show at least some available argument in favour of an appeal.  I think I can say that this matter is probably as bereft of such an argument as any I have ever seen.  That is saying something.

3. The applicant arrived in Australia in 2002 and did not seek a protection visa until 2005 in circumstances where he had been apprehended by the authorities, having overstayed his visa.

4. He has made it clear in what he has said to me today that his grievance lies in what occurred to him at the time of his being taken into detention and in particular the loss of his belongings, including, so he says, a substantial sum of cash.

5. I have read the decision of the Tribunal.  I have read the decision of the learned Federal Magistrate.  There is no breath of a chance of any appeal succeeding.  There is no arguable basis upon which a protection visa could have been allowed.

6. The application for extension of time is dismissed.  I order that the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent.

7. I should make clear that whatever grievances the applicant has in relation to matters other than the grant of a protection visa are not before this Court.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles.

Associate:

Dated:            6 June 2006

The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Susan Goodman of Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	25 May 2006
Date of Judgment:	25 May 2006