SZAIV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 452

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAIV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 452 SZAIV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 104 of 2004 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 16 APRIL 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 104 OF 2004

BETWEEN: SZAIV

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER: 16 APRIL 2004

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs. 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 104 OF 2004

BETWEEN: SZAIV

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE: 16 APRIL 2004

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court given on 16 January 2004. The learned Magistrate dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") handed down on 21 March 2003. The RRT had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent ("the Minister") not to grant the appellant a protection visa. 2 The appellant made written submissions to the RRT through a migration agent. However, he appeared in person before the Federal Magistrates Court and he has represented himself in this Court. 3 The amended notice of appeal filed by the appellant does not identify any error of law on the part of the Magistrate, beyond asserting that his Honour failed to find that the RRT had committed a jurisdictional error and had denied the appellant procedural fairness. The notice of appeal is uninformative as to the error of law or denial or procedural fairness that the appellant claims occurred. 4 The appellant handed up written submissions at the hearing. These complain about the RRT's findings of fact, but also assert that the appellant's case is "perfectly identical" with Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601, and that he was therefore denied procedural fairness. The submissions also assert, without elaboration, that the RRT was biased. Finally, they claim that the RRT did not make findings as to what "socio-political changes" might occur in Bangladesh.