SZIBD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1643

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIBD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1643 SZIBD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1548 OF 2006 MANSFIELD J

4 DECEMBER 2006

ADELAIDE (HEARD IN SYDNEY) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1548 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIBD

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MANSFIELD J DATE OF ORDER: 4 DECEMBER 2006

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay to the first respondent the costs of the appeal, fixed at $3500 including disbursements. 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 1548 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIBD

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MANSFIELD J

DATE: 4 DECEMBER 2006

PLACE: ADELAIDE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION 1 Appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate given on 27 July 2006: SZIBD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FMCA 1140. 2 The Federal Magistrate dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, dated 15 November 2005 and delivered on 6 December 2005. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister of 26 July 2005 refusing the appellant a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). 3 The appellant claims in his notice of appeal that the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error, and that the Federal Magistrate failed to detect jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal in two respects. The first is that the Tribunal presumed that he was persecuted because he "was (a) member of a political party" and a member of the regional branch of the political party "Nash Dom Rossiya" (Our Home Is Russia) (NDR), when he did not assert that membership. He then claims the Federal Magistrate simply failed to address that contention. The second is that the Tribunal failed to give him a notice required by s 424A of the Act about the mistaken belief that he was a member of the NDR, as the mistake could then have been "sorted out". 4 The appellant appeared in person at the hearing of the appeal. He did not enlarge upon those contentions in any significant way. It was apparent from his oral submissions that he had not drawn the notice of appeal himself. It was drawn by his migration agent. The appellant did not know what s 424A of the Act provided, or why it was referred to in the notice of appeal. As expressed in the notice of appeal, the second point is dependent upon the first ground of appeal succeeding.