SZTEW v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection

[2013] FCCA 1868

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZTEW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR [2013] FCCA 1868

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Refugee Review Tribunal.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Show cause hearing pursuant to rule 44.12 of the Federal Circuit CourtRules 2001 (Cth) – no arguable case for the relief claimed – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.44.12

Applicant: SZTEW

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1952 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Emmett

Hearing date: 8 November 2013

Date of Last Submission: 8 November 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 8 November 2013

REPRESENTATION

The applicant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter

Solicitor for the first Respondent:

Ms Sharon Sangha

(Sparke Helmore)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 1952 of 2013

SZTEW

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

EX TEMPORE

1. The first respondent seeks an order pursuant to r.44.12 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), that the proceeding before this Court, commenced by way of application filed on 21 August 2013, be dismissed on the basis that the application has not raised an arguable case for the relief claimed.

2. Rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) provides as follows:

   (1)At a hearing of an application for an order to show cause, the Court may:

   (a)if it is not satisfied that the application has raised an arguable case for the relief claimed – dismiss the application.

3. The only ground referred to by the applicant in his application is as set out in his application at ground 1:

   “The RRT decision was affected by legal error.”

4. The applicant was unrepresented before the Court this morning, although had the assistance of an interpreter. The applicant was invited to say whatever he wished in support of his application. The applicant did not make any relevant response.  

5. A copy of the Refugee Review Tribunal was annexed to an affidavit of the applicant filed in support of his substantive application on 21 August 2013.

6. The Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision record and reasons makes clear that it rejected the applicant’s claims on the basis of adverse credibility findings. There appears to be nothing on the face of the decision record to suggest that those findings were not open to the Refugee Review Tribunal on the evidence and material before it and for the reasons it gave. The applicant did not make any complaint that suggested that the Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision is affected by jurisdictional error.   

7. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the application has raised an arguable case for the relief claimed, and the proceeding before this Court, commenced by way of application filed on 21 August 2013, should be dismissed. 

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Emmett

Date:  19 November 2013