FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Godman v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 638

GENESIS GODMAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 510 of  2001

SACKVILLE J

SYDNEY

11 MAY 2001

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 a decision of a Judge of this Court given on 21 March 2001.  In that decision, Stone J dismissed the present applicant's application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).  The applicant now seeks an order extending the time in which to file an appeal from the decision of Stone J. 

2                     The background briefly is as follows.  On 8 November 2000, Mr Godman, a citizen of Nigeria applied to the Minister for a protection visa to remain in Australia.  His application was refused by a Delegate of the Minister on 14 November 2000.  This decision was affirmed by the Tribunal on 23 January 2001. 

3                     On 6 February 2001, the applicant applied to this Court pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for review of the Tribunal's decision.  In her decision, Stone J noted that the Tribunal had concluded that the applicant was not a witness of truth.  She observed that the Tribunal had found that the applicant's account of events was implausible in the extreme.  Her Honour also pointed out that the Tribunal had taken account of independent evidence that undermined certain claims that had been made by the applicant.  Her Honour said this:

“The application for an order of review filed by the applicant on 6 February 2001 contains no details of any grounds of review and does not set out any orders which are sought. At the hearing today, the applicant declined to put any submissions to the court.  Mr Jordan, counsel for the respondent relied on his written submissions.  Those submissions stated that there was no ground of review and that the Tribunal's decision was based on its finding that the applicant had fabricated his claims.  That finding was entirely open to the Tribunal on the material before it.  I agree with the respondent's submission.  The applicant has not pointed to, and having reviewed the materials, I have been unable to find, any reviewable error.”

4                     The present application for an extension of time was filed on 3 May 2001.  It was thus filed outside the 21 day period provided for by Federal Court Rules, O 52 r 15(1).  There has been no explanation for the applicant's failure to file a Notice of Appeal within the period prescribed by the rules.  However, since only a relatively short time has passed since Stone J delivered her judgment, I would not be inclined to regard the delay, of itself, as requiring refusal of an extension of time.

5                     The fundamental difficulty in this case is that there is nothing in the Notice of Appeal to suggest that there is any prospect whatsoever that the appeal would succeed.  The only ground identified in the Notice of Appeal is one that suggests that Muslim militants had declared the applicant to be a wanted person for a particular reason.  That issue was the subject of factual findings by the Tribunal.  As Stone J pointed out, no basis was presented to her for suggesting that the Tribunal had erred in law in rejecting that claim, nor that there was any other ground for setting aside the Tribunal's decision.  The applicant has not been able to suggest any basis upon which an appeal would enjoy any prospects of success to be granted.  In these circumstances, no extension of time should be granted.  To do so would simply be an act of futility. 

6                     I therefore dismiss the application for an extension of time for the filing and serving of a Notice of Appeal in this matter.  I further order that the applicant to pay the costs of the Minister.

Associate:

Dated:           29 May 2001

The Applicant was unrepresented.

Counsel for the Respondent:                 Rohan White

Solicitor for the Respondent:                 Sparkes Helmore

Date of Hearing:                                   11 May 2001

Date of Judgment:                                 11 May 2001