SZKEP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2007] FCA 1335

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZKEP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1335

SZKEP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 971 OF 2007

MADGWICK  J
13 AUGUST 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 971 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

SZKEP
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK  J
DATE OF ORDER:	13 AUGUST 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal assessed in the sum of $2,000.00.

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	NSD 971 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

SZKEP
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK  J
DATE:	13 AUGUST 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court given by Cameron FM rejecting an application for judicial review of an adverse decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).  The appellant had claimed to fear persecution in his native state of Tamil Nadu in India on account of his political opinion, as manifested by previous political activities.  The Tribunal disbelieved him for reasons given, principally that he had so little knowledge of the history and activities of the party to which he had claimed to belong that it was quite inconsistent that a person who had held a position of the importance he had claimed to hold could manifest such relative ignorance.

2. There were various “template” criticisms raised by the application for judicial review and in submissions to the court below, together with a claim that the appellant had told the truth to the Tribunal and did not know why it found as it did.  His Honour rejected these criticisms for reasons that seem to me to be unappellable. 

3. The notice of appeal to this Court was also in template form.  It asserts, without descending to particulars, that his Honour “dismissed the case without considering the legal and factual errors contained in the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal”, and claimed that the Tribunal emphasised “some irrelevant question” and “ignored relevant material, relied in part on relevant material” and to have made findings “which were erroneous or mistaken”.  Again there are no particulars. 

4. Otherwise the appellant’s notice of appeal makes irrelevant assertions and refers to two cases which can have nothing at all to do with this case on its facts. 

5. In written submissions, the same or another hand has been again busy with a word processor, and a claim of actual bias has been added without particularisation or the faintest shred of justification.  A supposedly wrong test has been applied which was a matter agitated before the learned Federal Magistrate and correctly dismissed by him.  There was added a reference to s 424A though without particulars.  As far as I can see, there is nothing in it.  Otherwise the document complains of factual matters and makes other unfounded legal assertions which are unworthy of comment. 

6. The appeal will be dismissed with costs, assessed in the sum of $2,000.00.

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:       28 August 2007

Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	13 August 2007
Date of Judgment:	13 August 2007