Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZGMM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 585
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) SZGMM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 624 of 2006 TAMBERLIN J SYDNEY 27 APRIL 2006 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 624 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT
BETWEEN: SZGMM
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER: 27 APRIL 2006
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The application for an extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal is 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 624 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT
BETWEEN: SZGMM
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J
DATE: 27 APRIL 2006
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 In this matter, there is an application for an extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Smith ("the Federal Magistrate") given on 29 September 2005. 2 This application was filed on 27 March 2006. There is a period of delay in the order of six months, which has not been explained by any evidence. 3 I have considered the decision of the Federal Magistrate and also the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") and can identify no error of law or principle that would warrant interference or present any arguable case on behalf of the appellant. When the appellant came before me this afternoon, I asked him what he wished to say in relation to the application. The appellant responded that he had not had enough time to prepare his case. In view of the period of time that has passed since the application was filed, I do not accept this. 4 The appellant also said that he had been moved from one detention area to another and this had impeded his preparation for the case. Again, I do not accept that this is a proper reason for explaining the very substantial delay. 5 More importantly, there are two grounds of appeal raised that are simply generalised assertions and present no properly formulated ground of appeal. First, that the RRT failed to consider and properly exercise its discretionary power under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Secondly, that the judgment of the Federal Magistrate failed to consider the Tribunal decision provided no basis for reaching the result that led to the dismissal of the application before the Federal Magistrate. Nothing has been said in support of these grounds. I do not consider that they raise any arguable case and therefore I refuse to extend the time for the filing of the Notice of Appeal, as I consider that it would be futile. 6 Accordingly, I dismiss the application with costs.
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