SZSLH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2014] FCA 501

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZSLH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 501

Citation:	SZSLH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 501
Appeal from:	Application for extension of time: SZSLH v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2014] FCCA 19
Parties:	SZSLH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File number(s):	NSD 220 of 2014
Judge(s):	MARSHALL J
Date of judgment:	16 May 2014
Date of hearing:	16 May 2014
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	8
Counsel for the applicant:	The applicant did not appear

Counsel for the respondent:	Mr W Sharpe
Solicitor for the respondent:	Sparke Helmore

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 220 of 2014

BETWEEN:

SZSLH
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 MAY 2014
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Circuit Court dated 31 January 2014 is dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the first respondent Minister’s costs of the application.

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 WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 220 of 2014

BETWEEN:

SZSLH
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	16 MAY 2014
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant applies for an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal from a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court.  The notice of appeal was only filed five days out of time.  In the ordinary course, the Court would be sympathetic to extend time given the short delay involved.  However, no purpose would be achieved by extending the time within which to appeal where the proposed appeal lacks merit.  For the reasons set out below, this is such a case.

2. The applicant is a citizen of Nepal.  He entered Australia as a dependent of a person who held a student visa.  He did so falsely and at no stage was a dependent of that visa holder.  He applied to the first respondent Minister for a protection visa.  He claimed to fear persecution by reason of his political opinion.  He said he would be harmed by Maoists if he returned to Nepal.

3. The applicant received an invitation to attend an interview with a delegate of the respondent Minister.  The applicant failed to respond to the invitation.  The delegate was unable to be satisfied, merely on the material provided by the applicant, whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Nepal in the reasonably foreseeable future.  The delegate also decided that the applicant was not owed complementary protection obligations by Australia due to some of the applicant’s claims being in conflict with country information available to the delegate.

4. The applicant sought a merits review of the delegate’s decision before the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).  The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate.  It did not find the applicant’s claims concerning feared harm by Maoists to be credible.

5. The applicant sought judicial review before the Court below.  The only two grounds of review which dealt with alleged jurisdictional error concerned the Tribunal’s alleged failure to deal with all his claims and a denial of natural justice.  The Court below dismissed the application, finding no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s reasons.

6. The proposed ground one of the proposed appeal attacks the Court below’s failure to find legal error in the Tribunal’s decision.  The second proposed ground asserts that the Tribunal’s decision was arbitrary and unfair.

7. It appears from the proposed grounds that the applicant is concerned merely with the merits of the Tribunal’s decision and the Court below’s alleged failure to acknowledge a problem with the merits of the Tribunal’s decision.

8. The Court has carefully considered the reasons for decision of the Tribunal and the judgment of the Federal Circuit Court.  In finds no jurisdictional error in the former and no appealable error in the latter.  The Court refuses the application to extend time within which the applicant may file a notice of appeal.  It was not assisted by the applicant.  He failed to attend Court to make any submissions to support his application.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.

Associate:

Dated:        16 May 2014