SZCGD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1037

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCGD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1037

SZCGD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & ANOR NSD782 OF 2006

EMMETT J

4 AUGUST 2006

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD782 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZCGD

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 4 AUGUST 2006

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of $2,000. 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 NSD782 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZCGD

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE: 4 AUGUST 2006

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I have before me an appeal from orders of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing an application by the appellant for judicial review of a decision of the second respondent, the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). 2 The appellant is a citizen of India and arrived in Australia on 6 February 2003. On 10 February 2003, he lodged an application for a protection (Class XA) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act'). On 21 February 2003, a delegate of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ('the Minister'), refused to grant a protection visa. On 3 March 2003, the appellant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision. On 3 November 2003, the Tribunal affirmed that delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa. The appellant was notified of that decision, and the reasons for it were handed down, on 27 November 2003. 3 On 19 December 2003, the appellant commenced a proceeding in the Federal Magistrates Court, seeking Constitutional writ relief in respect of the Tribunal's decision. On 5 May 2004, the appellant filed an amended application. On 12 April 2006, for reasons given ex tempore on that day, Nicholls FM ordered that the application be dismissed and ordered the appellant to pay the Minister's costs in the sum of $5,000. 4 By notice of appeal, filed on 26 April 2006, the appellant now appeals to the Federal Court of Australia. The grounds of appeal in the notice of appeal are not helpful. The notice of appeal simply asserts that the Federal Magistrate dismissed the case without considering the legal and factual error in the decision of the Tribunal. 5 The appellant, who appeared in person today without any legal assistance, although he was assisted by an interpreter in the Tamil language, asked that the notice of appeal be treated as raising the ground that the Federal Magistrates Court erred in not upholding the grounds specified in the amended application. In addition, by written submissions, the appellant raised other matters to which I shall refer shortly. Despite being given the opportunity to do so, the appellant did not wish to make any further oral submissions beyond his written submission. That was the approach that he adopted before Nicholls FM.