SZJBQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2007] FCA 717

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJBQ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 717

SZJBQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
NSD 330 OF 2007

MADGWICK J
7 MAY 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 330 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZJBQ Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 MAY 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal fixed at the sum of $1200.

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 330 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZJBQ Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	7 MAY 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR

1. This is an application for extension of time to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court.  The judgment was given on 8 February 2007.

2. The application was lodged a few days out of time, on 7 March 2007.  The applicant has given an explanation for the delay and if it were not futile to grant the application, I would grant it. 

3. However, the decision of the learned Federal Magistrate recounts that the applicant approached the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) nearly four years after the notification of the applicant’s then authorised representative and, in consequence, the deemed notification of the applicant personally.  The applicant apparently says that the migration agent did not tell him of the delegate’s refusal and so he could not approach the Tribunal in a timely way. 

4. Regrettably, at least in this Court and in the Federal Magistrates Court, that would not assist him and the learned Magistrate, it seems to me, was unarguably correct in rejecting the application. 

5. The decision sought to be appealed against is not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of leave to warrant an appeal, and it would be futile to extend the time to file and service the notice of appeal.  I refuse to do so. 

6. The application will be dismissed with costs of $1200.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:

Dated:       16 May 2007

Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	7 May 2007
Date of Judgment:	7 May 2007