SZVED v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 907

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZVED v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 907 Appeal from: SZVED v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor [2016] FCCA 801

File number(s): NSD 456 of 2016

Judge(s): GILMOUR J

Date of judgment: 5 August 2016

Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 36(2)(a), 36(2)(aa), 36(2B)(a), 65, 91R(1)(b)

Date of hearing: 5 August 2016

Registry: New South Wales

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category: No catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 35

Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr M Wiese of Clayton Utz

ORDERS NSD 456 of 2016

BETWEEN: SZVED Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

JUDGE: GILMOUR J DATE OF ORDER: 5 AUGUST 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The first respondent have 7 days to file a minute of proposed orders in regards to costs and an accompanying affidavit. 3. The appellant have 7 days from the date of service of the first respondent's minute of costs orders and affidavit to file any responding minute and/or affidavit evidence. 4. The issue of costs be decided on the papers. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GILMOUR J: 1 The appellant appeals from a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court delivered on 18 March 2016 dismissing his application for judicial review of a decision of the former Refugee Review Tribunal (now the Administrative Appeals Tribunal) (Tribunal), dated 3 September 2014. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent (Minister) dated 16 March 2011 refusing to grant a Protection (Class XA) visa (protection visa) to the appellant. 2 The appellant's three stated grounds of appeal allege error by the Tribunal and not in terms by the primary judge. In two grounds, the appellant seeks essentially to re-agitate the allegations of error by the Tribunal that he made at first instance. In the Minister's submission, the primary judge was correct to dismiss those allegations. For reasons outlined below, the remaining ground of appeal is without merit. The appeal should therefore be dismissed with costs.