SZIMZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1794

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIMZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1794

SZIMZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1377 OF 2007

FLICK J

12 NOVEMBER 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1377 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIMZ

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: FLICK J DATE OF ORDER: 12 NOVEMBER 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 1377 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIMZ

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: FLICK J

DATE: 12 NOVEMBER 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The present proceeding is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court given on 26 June 2007. 2 The Federal Magistrates Court then dismissed an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 31 October 2006. 3 The jurisdiction of this court is that conferred by s 24(1)(d) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). That appellate jurisdiction may be exercised by a single judge: see s 25(1AA)(a). 4 The Notice of Appeal as filed on 16 July 2007 states that the Appellant seeks to raise two grounds of appeal, but thereafter sets forth three grounds, namely: (1) The Applicant, in her response to the RRT's s 424A letter explained that the previous translation attached to her PV application was not accurate, and that she would provide a new and correct translation at a later time. She submitted her new translation on 17 October 2006. The RRT, after reading the new translation, pointed out that 'the applicant has submitted a revised translation of part of her statement, which appears to remove the description of one period of detention, which is still inconsistent with her evidence at hearing.' The RRT, however, did not specify what new inconsistencies there were, and the Tribunal also failed to invite the applicant to comment on such new inconsistencies. (2) The RRT's decision was affected by prejudice. The RRT already made its decision on 10 October 2006, but the Applicant provided new evidence, being the new translation on 17 October 2006. After receiving the new evidence the Tribunal failed to give sufficient consideration to the new evidence. The Tribunal failed to comply with s 420 of the Act, which requires the Tribunal to conduct the review in a fair and just manner. (3) The Tribunal failed to extend the prescribed period in which the Applicant should reply to the s 424A letter. Under s 424B(4) the Tribunal may extend the period to 28 days, and in this case it is necessary for the Tribunal to do so because the Applicant, in her letter to the Tribunal on 6 October 2006, wrote that 'I will get someone to translate my original Chinese statement and then forward you a copy of the translation.' 5 None of these grounds, it is considered, have been made out.