FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZOHE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 73 Citation: SZOHE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 73 Appeal from: SZOHE v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2010] FMCA 506 Parties: SZOHE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL File number: NSD 895 of 2010 Judge: JESSUP J Date of judgment: 9 February 2011 Date of hearing: 9 February 2011 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 2 Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondents: Mr B O'Brien Solicitor for the Respondents: DLA Phillips Fox IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 895 of 2010 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZOHE Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: JESSUP J DATE OF ORDER: 9 FEBRUARY 2011 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. The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 895 of 2010 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZOHE Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: JESSUP J DATE: 9 FEBRUARY 2011 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia given on 1 July 2010 in which the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming an earlier decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse her application for a Protection (Class XA) visa was dismissed. The notice of appeal dated 20 July 2010 sets out four grounds of appeal, namely: 1. The decision of the Federal Magistrate was not in accordance with the Refugee Convention. 2. The decision of the Federal Magistrate was not in accordance with law. 3. The Federal Magistrate erred in not considering all of my evidence properly. 4. I do not believe my case was interpreted correctly, and I have been denied access to natural justice. 2 None of those grounds was particularised in the notice of appeal, and the appellant did not file an outline of submissions in support of her appeal. She appeared before me in person today to prosecute her appeal but made no submission about the judgment of the Federal Magistrate or about his Honour's reasons. The brief submissions which she made related more to her personal circumstances than to anything which might provide a basis for criticism of the way in which her application was disposed of by his Honour. I have had the assistance of some brief submissions made on behalf of the Minister, the thrust of which was that there was no substance in any of the grounds advanced in the notice of appeal. I accept those submissions. From my own reading of the Federal Magistrate's reading of the reasons of 1 July 2010, I am quite satisfied that his Honour's treatment of the appellant's then application for judicial review was unexceptionable. It follows that the appeal must be dismissed. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jessup. Associate: Dated: 9 February 2011