FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZHCJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] FCA 205 SZHCJ v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 1703 upheld SZHCJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2275 OF 2006 GYLES J 19 FEBRUARY 2007 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2275 OF 2006 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZHCJ Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: GYLES J DATE OF ORDER: 19 FEBRUARY 2007 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent. 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 2275 OF 2006 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZHCJ Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: GYLES J DATE: 19 FEBRUARY 2007 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is a purported appeal from a decision of Scarlett FM delivered on 1 November 2006 (SZHCJ v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 1703).The notice of appeal does not disclose any proper ground of appeal. There are several general grounds set out with no particularisation and no reference back to the learned Federal Magistrate's decision so as to identify error. The affidavit which has been filed in support suffers from the same defect. That defect is pointed out in the written submissions for the first respondent. Indeed it is apparent from the judgment below, that there was no proper ground of application before the Federal Magistrates Court. 2 The decision below afforded considerable leeway to the present appellant in presenting a case which had not been particularised. The Federal Magistrate carefully considered not just the general grounds enunciated, but other grounds, and rejected each of them, having considered the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). 3 At the beginning of this appeal hearing, I pointed out to the appellant the necessity to show error in the Federal Magistrate's decision before this Court can intervene. Recognising the difficulty that he has as an unrepresented party, what he then had to say made it clear that his grievance is as to the merits of the Tribunal's decision. He regarded the Tribunal's rejection of all of his claims as being unfair and biased. I should, again, make clear that the role of the Federal Court in this proceeding is to correct any errors made by the Federal Magistrate in the Federal Magistrates Court. Insofar as the Federal Magistrates Court is concerned, it has no role to second guess the Tribunal on matters of fact or judgment. The Federal Magistrates Court can only correct the Tribunal if jurisdictional error is revealed. 4 There being no proper ground of appeal raised or argued, there is no basis upon which the appeal can succeed. The appeal is dismissed. I order that the appellant pay the costs of the first respondent. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles. Associate: Dated: 26 February 2007 The Appellant appeared in person Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr R White of Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 19 February 2007 Date of Judgment: 19 February 2007