SZJOO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2007] FCA 747

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJOO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 747

SZJOO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 410 OF 2007

SPENDER ACJ
14 MAY 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 410 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZJOO
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	SPENDER ACJ
DATE OF ORDER:	14 MAY 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs, fixed in the sum of $600.

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 410 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZJOO
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	SPENDER ACJ
DATE:	14 MAY 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal by SZJOO from an order of Scarlett FM on 1 March 2007 who, amongst other things, ordered that the application be dismissed and the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $2,500. 

2. The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 16 March 2007 which identifies the grounds of appeal as:

   1.I [SZJOO], I think is a wrong decision so I want to put my case Full Federal Magistrates Court in Sydney.

3. The appellant gtives his address for service as 140 Ringrose Avenue, Greystanes, New South Wales.  When the matter was called on this morning there was no appearance by the appellant.  Inquiries made of other floors of the building, including the Registry floor, indicate that he has not appeared. 

4. I will dismiss the application for failure by the appellant to prosecute his appeal. 

5. I am satisfied from inquiries that the notice of this appeal hearing was served by the Registry on the appellant to his address for service.  Further, I accept that the Minister forwarded by pre-paid registered post on 7 May 2007 the submissions by the Minister on this appeal, and I am further satisfied that the appellant was served with a copy of the appeal book and other material also by pre-paid registered post by the Minister.  I am informed that none of the material has been returned unclaimed.

6. I have read all of the material in relation to this appeal. 

7. The short facts are that the appellant, who is a young male, a citizen of India, arrived in Australia on 29 December 2005.  On 1 February 2006 he lodged an application for a Protection Visa alleging that he would be killed by the brother of his girlfriend as he is a Hindu and his girlfriend is Muslim. 

8. A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a Protection Visa on 4 May 2006. 

9. The appellant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 25 May 2005 for a review of that decision.  The Tribunal found that the appellant was not credible and more importantly found that his version was inconsistent with information provided to the Department, whose records show that the appellant and his wife applied for visas to visit Australia with a tour group in November 2004.  Documents accompanying that application included various documents, which indicated that the appellant and his wife were married in a traditional Hindu ceremony and that he had been married for a number of years.

10. A letter indicating that information was given to the appellant on 16 August 2006 and he was given until 31 August 2006 to respond, a period within the time prescribed for the receipt of information under 424B(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) contained in the Migration Regulations 4.35(3). No response has been received from the appellant, and on 11 September 2006, the Tribunal made the decision rejecting his application for review.

11. The applicant sought, by application to the Federal Magistrates Court on 25 October 2006, judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. No legal grounds were set out in that application.  Scarlett FM on 1 March 2007 found there had been no allegation of jurisdictional error and:

    I am unable to discern any jurisdictional error from my reading of the decision.

12. His Honour proceeded to dismiss the application with costs.

13. The Notice of Appeal is as I have indicated at [2]. No basis therefore exists for any view that any error has been committed by the Federal Magistrate in dismissing the application in the factual circumstances to which I have referred. No jurisdictional error has been demonstrated. The appeal has to be dismissed with costs.

14. I dismiss the appeal. 

15. I order the appellant to pay the costs of the first respondent which I fix in the sum of $600.

I certify that the preceding fifteen (15) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Acting Chief Justice Spender.

Associate:

Dated:         16 May 2007

No appearance by the Appellant
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	14 May 2007
Date of Judgment:	14 May 2007