Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZDMF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 381
MIGRATION – appeal from decision of Federal Magistrate which rejected application for review of Tribunal's decision – some issues raised and allegations made before Magistrate below not earlier raised or made before the Tribunal – appeal to this Court purportedly conducted by appellant by way of re-hearing – no merit in any ground of appeal advanced – appeal dismissed
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 424A Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 ref'd to Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601 ref'd to Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510 ref'd to SZDMF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 39 OF 2005 CONTI J 7 APRIL 2005 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 39 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZDMF
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: CONTI J
DATE OF ORDER: 7 APRIL 2005
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant to 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 NSD 39 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZDMF
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: CONTI J
DATE: 7 APRIL 2005
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction 1 This is an appeal from the whole judgment of Lloyd-Jones FM given on 22 December 2004, whereby His Honour dismissed the Appellant's claim to set aside a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') made on 15 September 1999, which in turn had affirmed a decision of the Minister's delegate not to grant a protection visa. 2 The appeal was based on four grounds, none of which are explained in any meaningful way in the notice of appeal, which was filed on 11 January 2005; those purported grounds of appeal were as follows (read literally): '2. The Honourable court erred in law determining that there was no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in determining that the applicant's suffering due to Ahmadiyya sect did not constitute persecution within the meaning of convention. 3. The Honourable court erred in law not allowing the applicant to give evidence in the Court in relation to transcript of hearing tape. 4. Legal arguments were put before the Honourable Magistrates Court but the Arguments were not considered. 5. I will provide more details later.' 3 In addition to the notice of appeal, the appellant filed written submissions in Court on the day of the hearing. Those submissions elaborate somewhat on the grounds identified in the appellant's notices of appeal, and also contain a number of additional purported grounds that were not contained in the notice of appeal, and as such amount to an impermissible amendment of that notice without leave. 4 On 15 February 2005, the Chief Justice of this Court authorised the hearing of this appeal to be undertaken by a single Justice of this Court.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate