FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAXU v Minister for Immigration& Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 168

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25(1A)

SZAXU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NSD 1675 OF 2004

HELY J

9 FEBRUARY 2005

SYDNEY

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.

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

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     On 16 November 2004 the appellant lodged a notice of appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Raphael delivered on 28 October 2004 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the RRT’). The RRT had affirmed a decision of the Minister’s delegate not to grant a protection visa to the appellant. By direction of the Chief Justice, given under s 25(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) the appellant jurisdiction of the Court in relation to this appeal is to be exercised by a single judge.

2                     On 10 December 2004 I ordered that the appellant file and serve an amended notice of appeal giving particulars of each ground of appeal by 21 January 2005 and that the appellant should file and serve an outline of submissions five days prior to today’s hearing. I gave those directions because the notice of appeal includes the following grounds only:

‘(2) That the Tribunal denied the applicants procedural fairness/natural justice.

(3) The Tribunal failed to act in a bona fide manner in relation to the making of the decision.’

3                     Those grounds are entirely lacking in particularity and do not expose any error in the Federal Magistrate’s decision. To the extent that procedural fairness and natural justice grounds were dealt with by the Federal Magistrate no error has been identified in that decision, therefore the first ground of appeal fails.

4                     The second ground of appeal, lack of bona fides on the part of the RRT also fails; if only because it was not a ground of review which was relied upon before the Federal Magistrate. But, more importantly, there is simply no material before me which would indicate a lack of bona fides.

5                     I invited the appellant to put any oral submissions that he wanted me to take into account when considering his appeal, but he explained to me that he could not afford to get lawyers. He has been unsuccessful in getting any assistance from his community and he does not have sufficient knowledge to know what to say. I explained to the appellant that whilst I sympathise with a person in his situation, the position remains, unfortunately from his point of view, that there is simply no material before me which establishes any error on the part of the Federal Magistrate.

6                     I have read the Federal Magistrate’s decision myself, a number of times, and I have to say that I agree with the decision. I have not detected any error in the conclusions to which the Federal Magistrate came. It therefore follows that the appeal must be dismissed.

7                     The order of the Court is that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

Associate:

Dated: 3 March 2005