FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZAJJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 328
SZAJJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N 184 of 2004
WHITLAM J
22 MARCH 2004
SYDNEY
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
N184 of 2004 |
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
BETWEEN: |
SZAJJ APPELLANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
WHITLAM J |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
22 MARCH 2004 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
SYDNEY |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal is 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 |
N184 of 2004 |
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
BETWEEN: |
SZAJJ APPELLANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
WHITLAM J |
|
DATE: |
22 MARCH 2004 |
|
PLACE: |
SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing with costs an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) handed down on 6 March 2003. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the respondent’s delegate refusing to grant a protection visa to the appellant.
2 The notice of appeal does not state proper grounds of appeal, but it alleges jurisdictional error on the part of the federal magistrate as well as the Tribunal. Two sets of submissions signed by the appellant have been filed. The appellant appears in person and tells me that the second set of submissions was prepared by a friend of his who is a student. These submissions merely reproduce excerpts from cases and have no relevance to the judgment. The appellant also appeared in person in the court below, and it is apparent from the reasons for judgment that the federal magistrate was placed in a similar situation to that which faces me. The federal magistrate accepted the submissions made by the respondent. He held that the appellant failed to establish any jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal and that the decision of the Tribunal was thus a privative clause decision. The application for judicial review of that decision was, therefore, dismissed. The appellant has not hinted at any error on the part of the federal magistrate in his disposition of that application, and it is apparent from a reading of those reasons for judgment and of the reasons for the Tribunal’s decision that the appellant’s case was bound to fail at first instance. No ground of appeal has been made out. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
|
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Whitlam. |
Associate:
Dated: 22 March 2004
The appellant appeared in person
|
Solicitor for the respondent: |
Ms A J Houlton of Sparke Helmore |
|
|
|
|
Date of hearing: |
22 March 2004 |
|
|
|
|
Date of judgment: |
22 March 2004 |
