SZJSZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2007] FCA 1675

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJSZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1675

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

SZJSZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1591 OF 2007

TAMBERLIN J
26 OCTOBER 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1591 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZJSZ
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	26 OCTOBER 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed with costs.

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 1591 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZJSZ
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	26 OCTOBER 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from Federal Magistrate Cameron which dismissed an application under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) for judicial review. Judicial review is sought in relation to a decision of the second respondent, the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), which agreed with the decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse the grant of a protection visa under the Act.

2. The appellant’s Notice of Appeal does not disclose any grounds which indicate a basis on which the judicial review is to be conducted.  It merely asserts that the Federal Magistrate failed to find an error of law, jurisdictional error or breach of procedural fairness, and that the Federal Magistrate was misled with wrong information and it states that he will provide more details later on.  Although I can understand the personal and medical difficulties which the appellant has had in this matter, the Court is left in the position where there is no material before it, or grounds for review made out, which would enable it to decide that there has been an error in the decision of the Federal Magistrate or jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.

3. I have considered carefully the decision of the Federal Magistrate, and also the Tribunal’s reasons for decision, and I have noted that this matter has had a substantial history since its remittal to the Tribunal for further consideration.  In having regard to the findings and reasoning in the decision of the Tribunal, it is apparent that the matter turned on allegations made by the appellant concerning a relationship he had in Syria, the circumstances of which gave, the appellant said, gave rise to his fear of harm.  The Tribunal formed the view that the appellant’s evidence disclosed inconsistencies and, accordingly, after reviewing the documents and looking at the evidence as a whole, did not accept the evidence.

4. The determination of whether evidence is accepted is a question of fact which is within the province of the Tribunal.  It is not a matter which is open to the Court to review unless special grounds or exceptional circumstances are shown in accordance with settled case law.  In this case, there is no question of law which is disclosed as a basis for an appeal in this matter in my opinion. 

5. Accordingly, in this particular matter, since no error has been disclosed in the judgment of the Federal Magistrate and no reviewable error in the decision of the Tribunal, I am obliged to dismiss this appeal.  I do so with costs.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin.

Associate:

Dated:        5 November 2007

Counsel for the Respondent:	M. Snell
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	26 October 2007
Date of Judgment:	26 October 2007