SZDQC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1649

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDQC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1649 SZDQC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N1246 OF 2004 EMMETT J 10 SEPTEMBER 2004 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1246 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZDQC

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 10 SEPTEMBER 2004

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The notice of appeal filed on 20 August 2004 be dismissed as incompetent. 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 N1246 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZDQC

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE: 10 SEPTEMBER 2004

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant is a citizen of Indonesia who arrived in Australia on 18 April 1999. On 7 May 1999 she lodged an application for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act'). On 4 August 1999 a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ('the Minister'), refused to grant a protection visa. On 6 September 1999 the appellant sought review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). On 7 March 2000 the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa. 2 There is no suggestion that the appellant was not notified of that decision within a short time after the date on which it was made. Indeed, there is a suggestion that she was advised of the decision on 23 March 2000. Nevertheless, the appellant took no steps in relation to the decision until 24 May 2004 when she commenced a proceeding in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. She had previously written to the Minister on 10 March 2004 asking the Minister to exercise the power under s 417 of the Act to intervene in her case. The Minister declined to do that on 16 April 2004. 3 In her application to the Federal Magistrates Court the appellant stated that her grounds of review were as follows: 'The Refugee Review Tribunal failed to find that the Convention provides for protection against well founded fear being persecuted for reasons of a Convention reason, whether or not the persecuting state provides for the persecution feared pursuant to a law of general application.