FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZCIL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1694 MIGRATION – appeal from Federal Magistrates Court – no error of law or principle SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 215 ALR 162 followed SZCIL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 1579 OF 2005 TAMBERLIN J SYDNEY 22 NOVEMBER 2005 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1579 OF 2005 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT BETWEEN: SZCIL APPELLANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J DATE OF ORDER: 22 NOVEMBER 2005 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal is dismissed with costs. 2. The Refugee Review Tribunal is joined as a second respondent to the proceedings. 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 1579 OF 2005 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT BETWEEN: SZCIL APPELLANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J DATE: 22 NOVEMBER 2005 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Barnes delivered on 17 August 2005. 2 The notice of appeal does not give any particulars of the basis of the appeal. The grounds of appeal are stated to be that there is an error of law involved in the decision and that further grounds of review would be submitted after seeking legal advice. No further grounds of review have been submitted by the appellant. When the appellant appeared before me this afternoon, he indicated that he would need two months to obtain more evidence to support his case but he gave no indication of what this evidence was. 3 Nothing was submitted by the appellant in support of the suggestion that there was any error of law or miscarriage of justice in the application of principle by the Refugee Review Tribunal that would warrant judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. Nor were any submissions made to as to any specific error in the decision of the Federal Magistrate. 4 I have been taken through the relevant documents and the reasons for decision of the Tribunal. I note that the appellant was notified by the Tribunal that it had considered the written material before it in relation to the application but was unable to make a decision on the information alone. This must have provided an indication to the appellant that further material was necessary in order to support his case. That letter was written on 10 September 2003. The decision of the Tribunal was made on 5 November 2003. 5 I have considered the findings and reasons of the Tribunal and I note that the Tribunal, in the absence of any satisfactory information from the appellant, found that the appellant did not have a well founded fear of persecution for reason of his political opinion. It also made an independent finding that the appellant could reasonably be expected to relocate in India, where he could avoid the harm that he professes to anticipate. The Tribunal was satisfied that the appellant had the skills, knowledge and ability to relocate in India. 6 Having regard to the reasons for judgment of the Tribunal and the Federal Magistrate and the fact that nothing has been advanced by the appellant in support of his case, I am not persuaded that there has been any error of principle that would warrant review of the decision of either the Tribunal or the Federal Magistrate. 7 Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal with costs. 8 Consistent with the High Court's decision in SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 215 ALR 162, an application was made by counsel for the respondent to join the Tribunal to the proceedings. I am informed that the Tribunal submits to the decision of the Court and, accordingly, I make an order joining the Tribunal as a second respondent to the proceedings. I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin. Associate: Dated: 7 December 2005 The Appellant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter Counsel for the Respondent: S McNaughton Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron Date of Hearing: 22 November 2005 Date of Judgment: 22 November 2005