SZIFE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2007] FCA 745

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIFE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 745

SZIFE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 346 OF 2007

SPENDER ACJ
10 MAY 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 346 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZIFE
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	SPENDER ACJ
DATE OF ORDER:	10 MAY 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent, fixed in the sum of $2,500.

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 346 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZIFE
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	SPENDER ACJ
DATE:	10 MAY 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The appellant in these proceedings is a citizen of Palestine who arrived in Australia on 4 July 2005. 

2. On 11 August 2005 he lodged an application for a Protection Visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.  A delegate of the Minister refused the application on 6 September 2005.  He appealed to the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 13 September 2005, which, in a decision made on 12 December 2005, dismissed his appeal.  The appellant then appealed to the Federal Magistrates Court on 27 January 2006, which decided on 15 February 2007 that there was no jurisdictional error discernible in the reasons of decision of the Tribunal. 

3. The appellant appealed to this Court.  The grounds of appeal are set out in paragraph 2 of the Notice of Appeal. 

   The Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) failed to consider the harm from the “Al Aqsa” Martyrs Brigade, which is one of the Palestinian Muslim Terrorist Organisations.  The harm and persecution against the appellant as a Christian in Al Zababde where there were only five Christian families out of approximately 3000 people and the Rebels attacked the Christian youth in front of the Church.  The Tribunal relied on independent evidence which does not apply to the particular circumstances of the applicant who belonged to a minority in the area and the danger he confronted because he is Christian and, in particular, from a social group as a well established Christian family.

4. When the appeal was called on today, the appellant submitted that the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade were confronting.  He said:

   We explained that the initial confrontation was they hit us and we explained all of this, and also the theft of the shop.  Our situation there in Palestine was really miserable. … There’s no life there.  There’s no freedom, there’s no life.  Even the government there is not able to provide security for us.  And I didn’t come here just for no reason, just for the sake of coming to this country, but I have a family here.  At least here there is freedom, there is security.

5. He said to the Court:

   We’re not asking anything.  We’re just asking from the government just to give us time to prove ourselves.  I am not asking for citizenship from the government. … It’s not easy even to stay here because I left my dad, my mum, my siblings there. … I have a good record.  I have four uncles that are looking after us.

6. And he said:

   All what I need is just to give me time to live here until the situation change there, become more secure.

7. Later he said:

   The way the people, they deal with us here, the way they treat us and talk to us, it’s totally different than the way there in Palestine.  If we go there they will not really treat us the same way that we’ve been treated here.

8. He asked:

   I’ll ask this here, to give me an opportunity, to give me hope for life.

9. As those submissions plainly indicate, the appellant was directing his submissions at the merits of his application.  Those submissions illustrate a misunderstanding of what this Court can do on an appeal. 

10. This Court does not have power to review the merits of the appellant’s application for a visa to remain in Australia.  Nothing in the material, all of which I have read, reveals any jurisdictional error by the Tribunal.  The appellant simply is seeking to challenge the correctness of what the Tribunal found.  Nothing in the material indicates that the Federal Magistrate erred in his conclusion that there was no jurisdictional error tainting the decision of the Tribunal. 

11. For the above reasons, it is necessary to order that the appeal be dismissed.

12. I dismiss the appeal with costs, which I fix in the sum of $2,500.

I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Acting Chief Justice Spender.

Associate:

Dated:       16 May 2007

The Appellant appeared in person:
Counsel for the Respondent:	Stephen Lloyd
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	10 May 2007
Date of Judgment:	10 May 2007