FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZIGA v Minister For Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 289 SZIGA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2521 OF 2006 BUCHANAN J 28 FEBRUARY 2007 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2521 OF 2006 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZIGA Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: BUCHANAN J DATE OF ORDER: 28 FEBRUARY 2007 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be 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 2521 OF 2006 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZIGA Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: BUCHANAN J DATE: 28 february 2007 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BUCHANAN J: 1 The appellant is a citizen of India. He arrived in Australia on 29 July 2005. He applied for a protection (class XA) visa on 17 August 2005. On 10 October 2005 a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs refused his application for a protection visa. On 25 October 2005 he applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the RRT') for a review of the delegate's decision. In a decision which was handed down on 17 January 2006, the RRT affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa. 2 On 2 February 2006 the applicant applied for judicial review in the Federal Magistrates Court. By judgment delivered on 5 December 2006 the application for judicial review was dismissed by Lloyd-Jones FM. The appellant now appeals to this Court. The notice of appeal was filed on 22 December 2006. 3 Eight of the nine grounds of appeal in this case are identical with grounds of appeal in two other appeals which were before me this week, within days of each other (SZHUP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship - NSD1849/2006, and SZGDN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship – NSD 2520/2006.) 4 The feature which marks the grounds of appeal in this case, and in the others, is their generality and their lack of connection to any particular facts in the case. Each of the appellants in those cases is unrepresented. Presumably there is some network or other which is providing assistance to them, but it is of very dubious quality. 5 The lack of particularity in the grounds of appeal, or their apparent connection with the case at hand, and the ritual invocation of the names of recent cases without the statement of any argument based on them, provides no assistance to the Court and none to the appellant. One of the cases purportedly relied upon in the grounds of appeal does not appear to exist (AGDB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.) 6 In the present case, the appellant's application for a protection visa and his application for judicial review in the Federal Magistrates Court were decided against him because he was not believed. The RRT did not find either him, or his claims, to be credible. The RRT found that he was not a truthful witness and that he invented his claims. 7 Lloyd-Jones FM correctly found that the assessment of the appellant's credibility was a matter within the particular province of the RRT (see Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407 at 423 [67]). None of the grounds of appeal give any respectable suggestion that would provide a starting point for any argument of jurisdictional error. To my invitation this morning to the appellant to say anything he wished in support his appeal he asserted firstly that the RRT did not conduct its inquiry correctly, and that they did not ask him for information, but rather the member of the RRT did all the talking. After Mr Brennan, who appeared for the first respondent, had made some brief submissions, the appellant, in response, to my further invitation to him, asserted that the RRT did not ask him for any information or ask him for any evidence and nor did it give him any opportunity to get documents from India. 8 I am not prepared to give any weight to these assertions in the light of the discussion which is recorded in the decision of the RRT which makes it plain that the appellant was asked for a range of information and that he did not provide it in a way which seemed to the RRT to be satisfactory. In a passage which Mr Brennan drew to my attention in his submissions this morning the RRT recorded: 'It did not appear to the Tribunal that the applicant did not understand what information he was being asked to provide, rather it seemed he was being intentionally vague. The Tribunal was seeking details about claims that formed the basis of his fear of persecution not some obscure or minor matters, thus the Tribunal believes that the applicant should have been able to provide those details.' 9 As no jurisdictional error in the decision of the RRT has been established, and no error in the decision of Federal Magistrate Lloyd‑Jones has been identified, this appeal must be dismissed. It is appropriate to dismiss it with costs. I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Buchanan. Associate: Dated: 8 March 2007 Appellant was self represented: Counsel for the Respondent: Mr T Brennan Solicitor for the Respondent: DLA Phillips Fox Date of Hearing: 28 February 2007 Date of Judgment: 28 February 2007