FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Iqbal v Minister For Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 938

ZAFAR IQBAL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 604 OF 2000

SACKVILLE J

30 JUNE 2000

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.      The application be dismissed.

2.      The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     This is an application for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal from the decision of Hill J given on 28 April 2000: Iqbal v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 565. In that judgment, his Honour dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 25 October 1999. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister, refusing the applicant a protection visa.

2                     The evidence indicates that the applicant sent by facsimile a notice of appeal to the Australian Government Solicitor. The facsimile was sent within the 21 day period of appeal required by Federal Court Rules O 52, r 15(1).  The notice of appeal itself was not filed in the Court within the required period. The Australian Government Solicitor advised the applicant of the need to file a notice of appeal in the Court, but he did not act on this advice.

3                     It is clear enough that the applicant failed to file a notice of appeal in the Court because he did not understand the correct procedure to follow. In the circumstances, since the applicant had taken some action within the prescribed 21 day period to institute an appeal, it would not take very much to persuade me to grant his application for leave to appeal. Even in such a case, however, it is still necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that there is at least a plausible argument that can be put to the Full Court on an appeal. Otherwise the appeal would simply be futile and a waste of the Court's time and resources.

4                     In his reasons for judgment, Hill J pointed out that the Tribunal had formed a very unfavourable view of the applicant’s evidence. Indeed, the Tribunal made findings that rejected the factual basis of the claims put forward by the applicant. Hill J pointed out that the jurisdiction of the Court under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to review decisions of the Tribunal is limited. His Honour also noted that it was difficult for a legally untrained person to put forward arguments of law. Even in making appropriate allowance for that difficulty, his Honour was unable to see any legal error in the conclusions or reasoning of the Tribunal. For that reason his Honour dismissed the application.

5                     The notice of appeal drafted by or on behalf of the applicant identifies only one ground of appeal from the judgment of Hill J. That ground is as follows:

His Honour erred in finding that the applicant fear of persecution as a politician was not on account of Refugees Convention reason.

That ground does not identify with any clarity or precision any error of law that is alleged to have been made by Hill J. Nor does it identify any error made by the Tribunal that could provide a basis for relief under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

6                     I invited the applicant to explain to me what arguments he wished to put to the Full Court. Understandably enough, he was not able to formulate any such argument. I appreciate that it is difficult for a person who is not legally trained and who does not speak English to formulate arguments of law. Nonetheless it would not be appropriate for me to find that there are “special reasons” as required by Federal Court Rules O 52, r 15(2) in the absence of the applicant identifying or raising at least some plausible argument that could be put to the Full Court. In substance, he has asserted only that he disagrees with the factual findings made by the Tribunal. That is not a basis for contending that the trial judge erred in law in dismissing the application to review the Tribunal’s decision.

7                     In my opinion, leave should not be granted for an extension of time in this case. To do so would allow a futile appeal to go ahead. Accordingly, I must dismiss the application. As the applicant has been unsuccessful in his application, he should pay the costs of the respondent. I so order.

Associate:

Dated:              30 June 2000

The applicant appeared in person.