SZEVO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1451

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEVO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1451 SZEVO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 1443 of 2004 WILCOX J 3 NOVEMBER 2004 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1443 of 2004

BETWEEN: SZEVO

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT JUDGE: WILCOX J

DATE OF ORDER: 3 NOVEMBER 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 NSD 1443 of 2004

BETWEEN: SZEVO

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WILCOX J

DATE: 3 NOVEMBER 2004

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WILCOX J: 1 This is an appeal against a decision of Lloyd-Jones FM on 1 October 2004 dismissing an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). A direction under s 25(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) has been made, to the effect that the jurisdiction of the Court shall be exercised by a single judge. 2 At the hearing before the magistrate, the appellant was represented by counsel. Counsel raised a number of arguments in support of a contention that the Tribunal had fallen into jurisdictional error in handling the appellant's application for merits review. The magistrate, in a careful judgment, dealt with each of the matters raised by counsel. He rejected all the arguments that had been put to him. I have read the magistrate's reasons. I respectfully agree with the way in which the magistrate dealt with each of those arguments. 3 The appellant is not represented today. She appears on her own behalf, assisted by an interpreter. 4 I had explained to the appellant at a directions hearing that the Court could not consider the facts of her case, or the likely situation if she returned to her native country, Indonesia. Although the appellant told me she understood this, the only matters she raised today relate to her fear about the probability of persecution if she returned to Indonesia. I have no view about the reasonableness of those fears. That is not a matter for the Court to determine. 5 No argument of jurisdictional error has been put to the Court. I am unable to find any jurisdictional error by the Tribunal. It seems to me that the appeal must be dismissed. 6 I order that the appeal be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.