Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZKTA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 750
SZKTA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
NSD 245 of 2008
TAMBERLIN J
8 MAY 2008
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 245 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZKTA
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Respondent
JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER: 8 MAY 2008
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 245 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZKTA
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Respondent
JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J
DATE: 8 MAY 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a Federal Magistrate who refused judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), which in turn had confirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent not to issue a protection visa to the appellant. 2 When the matter came on for hearing before me, I asked the appellant to state what the errors were which he wished to identify in either the decision of the Tribunal or of the Federal Magistrate, and his only submission, perhaps understandably, was that he would like the matter reviewed by the Tribunal. However, the appellant gave no reasons which would justify my making an order for such a review. 3 The Notice of Appeal in this matter is not helpful. The only ground that appears to be advanced is the general ground that the Tribunal erred by failing to consider all the claims and issues put forward by the appellant. There are no details given in support of this assertion. On this point, I note that the Tribunal's decision does state that it considered all the claims, both individually and cumulatively, and made its decision based on the evidence before it, namely, that it was not satisfied that the appellant suffered past persecution or that there was any real chance of being persecuted if returned. 4 On considering the body of the decision of the Tribunal, and particularly the reasoning and the findings together with the questions which were put to the appellant, I am satisfied that the Tribunal addressed the relevant issues and gave consideration to the case which was advanced by the appellant. 5 The case turned essentially on a decision by the Tribunal that the appellant's case lacked credibility. Detailed reasons were given for this finding. The question whether there is a reasonable fear in the present context is one purely of fact and degree, which is a matter for the Tribunal and not for the courts when exercising judicial review powers. 6 In addition, I have considered the reasoning of the Federal Magistrate and do not see any error disclosed which would warrant overturning that decision. I am also of the view that no error has been shown in relation to the decision of the Tribunal which would warrant the granting of an order pursuant to judicial review. 7 Accordingly, in those circumstances, I dismiss this appeal with costs. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate