FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZAHZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 186 SZAHZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 7 of 2004 WILCOX J 2 MARCH 2004 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 7 of 2004 BETWEEN: SZAHZ APPELLANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: WILCOX J DATE OF ORDER: 2 MARCH 2004 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant, SZAHZ, pay the costs of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, assessed at $3,000. 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 N 7 of 2004 BETWEEN: SZAHZ APPELLANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: WILCOX J DATE: 2 MARCH 2004 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WILCOX J: 1 This is an appeal against a decision of Raphael FM dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). The Chief Justice has directed that the appeal to this Court be heard by a single judge. 2 When the matter was listed this afternoon, the appellant did not appear. On the application of Mr D Jordan, counsel for the Minister, I made an order dismissing the appeal under Order 52 rule 38A(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules. I ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the Minister, which I assessed at $3000. However, after the Court had adjourned, the appellant presented himself at the Registry. I arranged for the Court to be reconvened. Having regard to the fact that the appellant is now present, I revoke the orders made by me earlier today. 3 Having now heard the appellant, I think the appeal must be dismissed on its merits. At a directions hearing, I explained to the appellant that it was necessary, if he was to succeed, that he demonstrate that the Tribunal had fallen into jurisdictional error. I explained to him what that term meant. He indicated he understood. 4 However, the appellant has been unable to indicate to me any jurisdictional error of the Tribunal. He told me he was unable to return to his own country, but that is not a submission about jurisdictional error. He also complained that the Tribunal member had asked him questions about his personal life. This complaint was put to the magistrate. However, the magistrate pointed out that questions about the appellant's personal life were material to the claim that he made to the Tribunal. 5 Nothing has been put before me to indicate that the magistrate fell into any error in his handling of the case. 6 I order that the appeal be dismissed with costs, which I assess at $3,000. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox. Associate: Dated: 10 March 2004 The Appellant appeared in person. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D Jordan Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 2 March 2004 Date of Judgment: 2 March 2004