SZILX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2007] FCA 1369


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZILX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1369

SZILX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD752 OF 2007

SPENDER J
15 AUGUST 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD752 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZILX
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 AUGUST 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as the second respondent to the appeal.

2.The appeal be dismissed.

3.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, fixed in the sum of $1,500.00.

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

NSD752 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZILX
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE:

15 AUGUST 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. I note the non‑appearance of the appellant to prosecute his appeal. 

  2. The matter will be dismissed for want of prosecution. 

  3. Further, however, while I have not had the benefit of any submissions the appellant might want to make concerning his appeal, I have read in full the reasons for judgment of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) and of the Federal Magistrates Court, and the written submissions on behalf of the first respondent. 

  4. In this particular case Nicholls FM dismissed the application and affirmed the decision of the Tribunal to refuse to grant to the appellant a Protection Visa.  The appellant did not attend the hearing in the Tribunal on 10 January 2006. 

  5. While there was no evidence to support the contention, he submitted to Nicholls FM that he was robbed on the day of the hearing before the Tribunal, had lost his documents and mobile phone and could therefore not attend the hearing or presumably contact the Tribunal.  His Honour said at [23]:

    [That submission] does not assist the applicant in showing jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.  The applicant has provided no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion.  Nor nor did he report the robbery to the police, or even attempt to contact the Tribunal.  But even if the applicant had been robbed as he claimed, that the consequence that failure to attend the hearing was through “no fault” of his own, in the absence of any knowledge of this, the Tribunal was “authorised to proceed to decide the review.”

  6. The appellant’s only ground of appeal alleges Nicholls FM erroneously upheld the respondent’s view that there was no jurisdictional error in the decision of the Tribunal, and asserts both that the appellant had no chance to present his grounds before the Tribunal, and  Nicholls FM erred in upholding the respondent’s view. 

  7. On all of the material it is plain that the Federal Magistrate was correct in his Honour’s conclusion that no jurisdictional error tainted the decision of the Tribunal. 

  8. On the material before the Court the appeal does not disclose any error in the decision of Nicholls FM or of the Tribunal and the appeal, on that ground also, ought to be dismissed with costs. 

  9. I direct that the Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as a second respondent, the Minister being now the first respondent. 

  10. I order that the appeal be dismissed, and the appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, which I fix in the sum of $1,500.00.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Spender.

Associate:

Dated:       29 August 2007

No appearance by the Appellant:
Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 15 August 2007
Date of Judgment: 15 August 2007
Details
AGLC
SZILX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1369
Case
[2007] FCA 1369
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of SZILX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the appellant, SZILX, appealed against a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal which found that he did not meet the criteria for a refugee visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The tribunal had determined that the appellant's fear of persecution in his home country was not well founded. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the decision of the tribunal and deciding whether it was legally sound.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the tribunal's decision was correct and whether the tribunal had applied the correct legal principles in assessing the appellant's application for a refugee visa. The court was required to determine whether the tribunal had made an error of law or had failed to consider relevant evidence in reaching its decision. The court also needed to consider whether the tribunal had given appropriate weight to the appellant's evidence and whether the decision was supported by the evidence.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the tribunal's decision was correct and that there was no error of law. The court found that the tribunal had properly considered the evidence before it and had applied the correct legal principles in assessing the appellant's application. The court also held that the tribunal had given appropriate weight to the appellant's evidence and that the decision was supported by the evidence. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed and that the tribunal's decision should be upheld. In addition, the court ordered that the appellant pay the costs of the appeal to the first respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as the second respondent to the appeal.

2. The appeal be dismissed.

3. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, fixed in the sum of $1,500.00.

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

SPENDER J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SPENDER J

Full text does not contain this section.