FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZANR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1075 SZANR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 1022 of 2004 WILCOX J 12 AUGUST 2004 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1022 of 2004 BETWEEN: SZANR APPELLANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: WILCOX J DATE OF ORDER: 12 AUGUST 2004 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the costs of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. 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 1022 of 2004 BETWEEN: SZANR APPELLANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: WILCOX J DATE: 12 AUGUST 2004 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WILCOX J: 1 This is an appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Raphael handed down on 17 June 2004. 2 When the matter came before me for a directions hearing, I informed the appellant that the matter would be heard today, subject to a determination by the Chief Justice as to whether the matter should be heard by a single judge or a Full Court. The Chief Justice subsequently directed that the matter be heard by a single judge. The parties were notified of that determination by letter. 3 At the directions hearing, I informed the appellant that he should be in a position today to present whatever arguments he wished in support of his appeal. He informed me that he understood this. 4 The notice of appeal, filed in this Court on 30 June 2004, sets out the following material under the heading 'grounds': 'Federal Magistrates Court failed to find that RRT decision was in breach of Section 1. The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, in failing to accord the Applicants Procedural fairness, as required undere [sic] section 424(1), section 418(3) of the Migration Act 1958.' 5 These so-called grounds are not readily intelligible. When I asked the appellant to tell me the basis upon which he contended that the Magistrate's decision should be reversed, he said that he could say nothing about that. In the absence of some submission from the appellant, I am unable to discern any viable ground of appeal. 6 I note that a number of matters were raised by the appellant before the Magistrate and dealt with by the Magistrate in his reasons for judgment. Having read the reasons for decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'), I am of the opinion that the Magistrate dealt correctly with each of the issues that was raised before him. I see no basis for any criticism of the Magistrate's reasoning. Anticipating that the appellant would not be legally represented today, I read, and considered for myself, the Tribunal's reasons for decision. I see no jurisdictional error in those reasons. 7 The appellant chose not to take advantage of the Tribunal's invitation to attend an appointed oral hearing. As might be expected, and as the reasons for decision of the Tribunal record, his absence presented the Tribunal with difficulties in fully appreciating his claim for refugee status. However, the Tribunal did not dismiss his application for review on that simple basis. The Tribunal considered all the documentary material that had been provided by the appellant. It was not persuaded by the material to accept the appellant's claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution if he was returned to his native country, Bangladesh. In reaching that conclusion, the Tribunal noted a number of inconsistencies in the material. It also noted reasons militating against a conclusion of a well-founded fear of persecution. In the result, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. 8 I appreciate that the appellant is unhappy about the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. However, as I pointed out to him at the directions hearing, this Court has no power to review the Tribunal's findings of fact. The Court is entitled to intervene in relation to a Tribunal decision only if it is satisfied that the Tribunal has fallen into jurisdictional error. I see no basis for imputing such an error to the Tribunal. Accordingly, I think the Magistrate was correct in dismissing the application for judicial review made to him. It follows that the appeal should be dismissed. 9 The order of the Court will be that the appeal be dismissed 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 Wilcox. Associate: Dated: 25 August 2004 The Appellant appeared in person. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr G Johnson Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron Date of Hearing: 12 August 2004 Date of Judgment: 12 August 2004