SZINS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 1099

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZINS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1099

SZINS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 872 OF 2006

MADGWICK J
4 AUGUST 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 872 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SZINS
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 AUGUST 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application to be dismissed with costs assessed in the sum of $1500.

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 872 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SZINS
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	4 AUGUST 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:

1. This is an application seeking leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court.  The applicant had brought judicial review proceedings in that court in respect of an adverse decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘Tribunal’).  The Minister filed a response to the application in the court below contending that in the absence of particulars for the shortly stated grounds the application did not raise an arguable case for the relief claimed.

2. Driver FM dealt with the matter by way of a show cause hearing pursuant to rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth). His Honour held that not only had the applicant failed to identify any reasonable grounds of review in her application, but there was no legal basis upon which the decision of the Tribunal might be challenged.

3. The intended notice of appeal in this Court simply repeats the grounds in the application to the Federal Magistrates Courts. Those grounds are:

   ·that the decision involved an important exercise of the power conferred by the Migration Act1958 (Cth) and accompanying Regulations;

   ·that the Tribunal failed to consider the whole of her case; and

   ·that the decision made by the Tribunal was illogical.

4. The accompanying affidavit deals with the alleged facts which would justify the applicant being accorded refugee status and addresses no legal matter whatsoever. 

5. The applicant appeared today unrepresented.  When asked what she wished to say, she indicated that she desired to produce further evidence which would support her claim for refugee status.  She passed up an opportunity to appear before the Tribunal.  It considered her claims to be too vague to be accepted in the light of many questions which arose and, because the applicant failure to appear before the Tribunal, had not answered.  

6. In my opinion, there is no hope of success if the applicant were granted leave to appeal.

7. The application should be dismissed with costs, assessed in the sum of $1500.

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

Associate:

Dated:       21 August 2006

Solicitor for the Applicant	The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	4 August 2006
Date of Judgment:	4 August 2006