FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZHWV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 2019
SZHWV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 161 of 2008
MOORE J
19 MAY 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 161 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZHWV
ApplicantAND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:
19 MAY 2008
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal be dismissed with costs.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 161 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZHWV
ApplicantAND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE:
19 MAY 2008
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 20 December 2007: SZHWV v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 2097. The Federal Magistrate dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal gave its decision on 21 October 2005, and affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant is a Christian from Lebanon, and had been a member and supporter of the Lebanese forces. The Tribunal accepted the substance of the applicant’s account of events in Lebanon before he came to Australia. The Tribunal ultimately concluded, however, that the evidence of the applicant about his experiences in Lebanon, and his views about what might happen to him, and having regard to country information, were not such as to enable the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution were he to return.
In the proceedings before the Federal Magistrate, there were seven grounds raised in the application, together with particulars not attributable to any specific ground, as well as particulars that did not relate to any of the specified grounds. The import of the Federal Magistrate’s decision was that the applicant sought to challenge various findings made by the Tribunal and its fundamental assessment that the applicant would not suffer harm, or was unlikely to suffer harm were he to return to Lebanon, to found the ultimate conclusion that he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution.
It is not apparent to me that the Federal Magistrate erred in his consideration of the various grounds raised by the applicant, and similarly, it is not apparent to me that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error in its consideration of the application of the applicant. While the application for leave to appeal was filed after the time for appealing had passed, I am not particularly concerned about the delay, particularly having regard to the time of year at which the Federal Magistrate gave his judgment, together with the fact that the applicant is an unrepresented litigant who did not have the benefit of legal advice.
However, I am not satisfied that any of the grounds that the applicant seeks to raise in the appeal have any prospects of success. In those circumstances, I am not satisfied there are special reasons for extending time. I order that the applicant for an extension of time be dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore. Associate:
Dated: 11 February 2009
The Applicant appeared in person. Solicitor for the First Respondent: DLA Phillips Fox
Date of Hearing: 19 May 2008 Date of Judgment: 19 May 2008
- AGLC
- SZHWV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 2019
- Case
- [2008] FCA 2019
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue the court needed to address was whether the applicant was entitled to an extension of time to appeal the Minister's decision. The court considered whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying the delay in lodging the notice of appeal. The applicant argued that their delay was due to procedural errors and miscommunications which warranted an extension of time. The Minister, on the other hand, contended that the applicant had not provided sufficient grounds for the extension and that the delay was inordinate.
The court analysed the principles governing extensions of time for appeals and found that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting an extension. The court noted that while the applicant had cited procedural errors and miscommunications, these factors did not sufficiently justify the delay. The court held that the applicant's responsibility for monitoring the timeliness of the appeal and the absence of any extraordinary circumstances meant that the application for an extension of time should be dismissed. Consequently, the court dismissed the application with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal be dismissed with costs.
Note:
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: MOORE J
Full text does not contain this section.