SZRUJ v Minister of Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship

[2013] FCA 867

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZRUJ v Minister of Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship [2013] FCA 867

Citation:		SZRUJ v Minister of Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship [2013] FCA 867
Appeal from:		SZRUJ v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2013] FCCA 283
Parties:		SZRUJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND CITIZENSHIP and PETER MCDERMOTT IN HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER
File number(s):		NSD 970 of 2013
Judge(s):		EDMONDS J
Date of judgment:		26 August 2013
Date of hearing:	19 August 2013
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	9
Solicitor for the Appellant:	The appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr P Knowles
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	DLA Piper Australia
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	DLA Piper Australia

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALESDISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 970 of 2013

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZRUJ
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

PETER MCDERMOTT IN HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	EDMONDS J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 AUGUST 2013
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs as agreed or taxed.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALESDISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 970 of 2013

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZRUJ
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

PETER MCDERMOTT IN HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	EDMONDS J
DATE:	26 AUGUST 2013
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 19 August 2013, I heard an appeal from the judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Judge Emmett) in SZRUJ v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2013] FCCA 283 dismissing the appellant’s application for judicial review of conduct leading to the recommendation by the second respondent, being an independent merits reviewer, that the appellant not be recognised as a person to whom Australia has protection obligations.

2. I dismissed the appeal and indicated the publication of my reasons would shortly follow.  What follows, are my reasons for judgment.

3. The grounds of appeal were:

   (1)There was a jurisdictional error in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia’s decision.

   (2)The reasons provided by the second respondent to the first respondent in support of the second respondent’s recommendation that the appellant was not a person to whom Australia had protection obligations were neither logical nor rational.

   (3)That further grounds of appeal would be provided once the appellant had legal representation and the review of the written reasons for the decision had been completed.

4. At the hearing, the appellant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter.  He relied on his affidavit sworn 16 August 2013 and filed the same date.  In that affidavit, he swore that he was not given fair hearing before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and sought an adjournment of the hearing so as to provide him with further time in which to obtain legal representation.

5. I refused the adjournment application because there was nothing in the appellant’s affidavit to support the grounds of appeal; all the matters raised in the affidavit went to a review of the merits of the appellant’s case, including a review of the second respondent’s refusal to believe the appellant’s version of the events and circumstances in and under which the appellant came to Australia.

6. As to ground (1), no jurisdictional error in the judgment below was identified, and I could not identify any.  Indeed, my review of the reasons for judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia did not disclose any appealable error.

7. As to ground (2), nothing was put in support of this ground.  No part of the reasons for judgment below were identified as exhibiting a lack of logicality or rationality but even if some part of those reasons did exhibit such characteristics, it would not give rise to appealable error.

8. No further grounds of appeal were advanced at the hearing.

9. In these circumstances, I had no alternative but to dismiss the appeal with costs.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Edmonds.

Associate:

Dated:       26 August 2013