SZEKM v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1214

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEKM v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1214 SZEKM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 869 OF 2005 STONE J 30 AUGUST 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 869 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZEKM

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE OF ORDER: 30 AUGUST 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The appeal be dismissed with 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 869 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZEKM

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE: 30 AUGUST 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from the decision of a Federal Magistrate made on 16 May 2005 in which his Honour dismissed an application to review a decision of the second respondent ('the Tribunal') made on 5 August 2004 and handed down on 30 August 2004. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the first respondent refusing to grant the appellant a Protection (Class XA) visa. 2 At the hearing of this appeal, the appellant, who appeared for himself with the aid of an interpreter, stated that he knew the appeal was hopeless and that he had only filed the appeal in the hope of staying in Australia for longer and avoiding the removal proceedings that ordinarily follow refusal of a protection visa. However, given the appellant was unrepresented and I had serious doubts that he was aware of the consequences of this statement, I decided to address the grounds listed in his notice of appeal. 3 The appellant, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, arrived in Australia on 18 April 2004. On 23 April 2004, he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. On the same day, the delegate of the first respondent refused the application. On 26 May 2004, the appellant sought review of the delegate's decision with the Tribunal.