SZKEW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2007] FCA 1851

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZKEW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1851

SZKEW AND SZKEX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1211 OF 2007

MADGWICK J
14 NOVEMBER 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1211 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

SZKEW
First Applicant

SZKEX
Second Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 NOVEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for an extension of time is dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent assessed in the sum of $950.

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 1211 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

SZKEW
First Applicant

SZKEX
Second Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	14 NOVEMBER 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from a judgment and orders of the Federal Magistrates Court given by Turner FM on 1 June 2007.  The application was filed on 28 June 2007 so the intended appeal was only a few days late. 

2. Normally the Court would forgive this and extend the time in which the appeal might be lodged and proceed, however the case appears to be hopeless.  The Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) rejected the first applicant’s (“the applicant”) credibility and the case of both applicants depended on his evidence.  The Tribunal gave detailed reasoning for this conclusion and that reasoning does not appear to evidence any mistake of jurisdictional approach.

3. The grounds of the application to the Federal Magistrate were generally put.  It was suggested that the Tribunal had failed to consider that the applicant’s claims were Convention-related.  It did conclude to the contrary, but that showed no jurisdictional error.  It was suggested that the Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error by reaching conclusions without considering facts in issue.  There is no basis for such a view.  It was further suggested that the Tribunal had discounted all of the applicant’s claims as untruthful without considering the individual merits of the claims.  There was no error in rejecting the applicant’s story root and branch once the Tribunal was persuaded on reasonable bases that he had no credit at all.

4. It was said that the Tribunal did not consider the applicant’s fears which constituted the “Convention-based reasons.” As his Honour pointed out, that was a factually incorrect suggestion. The proposed notice of appeal suggests an unparticularised breach of procedural fairness and errors concerning s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which, again, do not descend to particulars. The applicant has simply not suggested any arguable ground of appeal, nor so far as I can see is the judgment below attended with sufficient doubt to warrant an appeal.

5. The application for an extension of time will therefore be dismissed with costs, assessed in the sum of $950.

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

Associate:

Dated:        27 November 2007

Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	14 November 2007
Date of Judgment:	14 November 2007