SZJVT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1894

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJVT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1894 SZJVT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1137 of 2007

MADGWICK J

15 NOVEMBER 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1137 OF 2007

BETWEEN: SZJVT

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MADGWICK J DATE OF ORDER: 15 NOVEMBER 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application is dismissed. 2. The applicant is to pay the first respondent's costs assessed 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 NSD 1137 OF 2007

BETWEEN: SZJVT

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MADGWICK J

DATE: 15 NOVEMBER 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court declining to grant judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") which was adverse to the applicant. The applicant's delay in filing his appeal was quite short. Nevertheless, unless there is some reasonable prospect of success in the appeal, it is pointless to spend time to appeal. 2 The draft notice of appeal, in substance, complains that the applicant did not have sufficient time to present his case, presumably both before the Tribunal and before the learned Federal Magistrate. 3 There was an application by the applicant to the Tribunal to defer the time but the Tribunal found it was unmeritorious and refused it for reasons given. There is no sign of jurisdictional error in that decision. 4 The learned Federal Magistrate declined a request for further time to submit documents from the applicant's native Pakistan. There was no explanation for not doing so during the approximately six months that proceedings were pending in the Federal Magistrates Court and the applicant might have filed any relevant and admissible material. He was specifically allowed nearly three months at a directions hearing on 1 February 2007 to file any affidavits or amended application, but he took no advantage of this. 5 In my opinion the learned Federal Magistrate appears to be right for the reasons he gave. It appears to me that the matter is not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant an extension of time to enable the applicant to appeal. Indeed, the case seems to me to be legally hopeless and it would be completely futile to grant the application, which I refuse with costs, assessed in the sum of $2,000. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.