SZCLP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1875

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCLP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1875 SZCLP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD1948 OF 2005 EMMETT J 14 DECEMBER 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD1948 OF 2005

BETWEEN: SZCLP

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 14 DECEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal. 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 NSD1948 OF 2005

BETWEEN: SZCLP

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE: 14 DECEMBER 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He arrived in Australia on 3 October 2001. On 24 October 2001, he lodged an application for a protection (Class XA) visa under the Migration Act 1958 ('the Act'). On 25 February 2003, a delegate of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ('the Minister'), refused to grant a protection visa. On 24 March 2003, the appellant applied to the second respondent, the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'), for review of the delegate's decision. On 24 November 2003, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa. On 13 January 2004, the appellant commenced a proceeding in the Federal Magistrates Court seeking relief pursuant to s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) in respect of the Tribunal's decision. 2 An amended application was apparently filed at some stage with the leave of the Federal Magistrates Court. That amended application is dated 21 June 2004. Following a hearing before the Federal Magistrates Court on 29 September 2005, that Court gave leave for the Tribunal to be joined as a respondent, ordered the application be dismissed and ordered the appellant to pay the Minister's costs. By notice of appeal filed on 14 October 2005, the appellant now appeals to the Federal Court from the orders of the Federal Magistrates Court made on 29 September 2005. The Chief Justice has directed that the appeal be heard by a single judge. 3 When the matter was called on for hearing today the appellant was unable to advance any submissions in support of his appeal. He simply asserted that the Tribunal did not consider his case properly and that he did not get due justice. He made the same complaint about the Federal Magistrates Court. 4 The notice of appeal to this Court is quite unhelpful in terms of the grounds. The grounds of appeal are as follows: '(1) The single judge of the Federal Magistrates Court in his Honour's judgment delivered on 29 September 2005 failed to find error of law, jurisdictional error, procedural fairness and relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903.