SZKON v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] FCA 203

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZKON v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 203

SZKON v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 2198 OF 2007

GRAHAM J
25 FEBRUARY 2008
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2198 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZKON
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	GRAHAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 FEBRUARY 2008
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appellant’s application for further evidence to be received on the hearing of the appeal be refused.

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 2198 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZKON
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	GRAHAM J
DATE:	25 FEBRUARY 2008
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The matter presently before the Court is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia dismissing an application for constitutional writ relief in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) of 28 March 2007, which was handed down on 24 April 2007. 

2. On 7 January 2008, an affidavit by the appellant was filed in support of his appeal to this Court.  That affidavit had been sworn on 4 January 2008.  Annexure A to the affidavit was described as ‘My Statement’ and Annexure B as ‘Evidence Photo and Witness [sic] Letters’.  In the body of the affidavit, the appellant said:

   ‘I provide more information about my claim.’

3. There are no documents identified as annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’.  The affidavit is, however, quite lengthy.  The first three pages take the form of a typed submission which I understand to be the appellant’s written submissions in support of his notice of appeal of 8 November 2007 in this Court.  The documents which follow are partly in Chinese characters and partly in English and there are a series of photos to which dates have been applied from April 2007 to December 2007, that is to say, after the decision of the Tribunal was reached.  The first photograph would appear to bear the same date as the date on which the Tribunal’s decision was handed down.  I note that there are facsimile imprints on some of the documents which are expressed in Chinese characters which indicate the date of transmission as 27 November 2007.

4. There are also dates on documents which appear to be in original handwriting in Chinese characters where the dates appear to be 23 November 2007 and 21 November 2007.  None of the material which the appellant now wishes to rely upon appears to be directed at establishing some procedural unfairness on the part of the Tribunal.  The additional material is put before the Court in support of a merits review by this Court which, of course, it cannot engage in.  I reject the application of the appellant to receive the documents which follow the three pages of typed submissions attached to the appellant’s affidavit as further evidence to which the Court should have regard.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Graham.

Associate:

Dated:       29 February 2008

The Appellant appeared in person.
Counsel for the First Respondent:	G R Kennett
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
The Second Respondent filed a submitting appearance.
Date of Hearing:	25 February 2008
Date of Judgment:	25 February 2008