FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZCFU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 444
MIGRATION - no point of principle
SZCFU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 211 OF 2005
MOORE J
23 MARCH 2005
SYDNEY
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
NSD 211 OF 2005 |
|
BETWEEN: |
SZCFU APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
MOORE J |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
23 MARCH 2005 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
SYDNEY |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs.
3. Costs be fixed in the sum of $1000.
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 |
NSD 211 OF 2005 |
|
BETWEEN: |
SZCFU APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
MOORE J |
|
DATE: |
23 MARCH 2005 |
|
PLACE: |
SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 27 January 2004 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 4 November 2003. The Tribunal had affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to not grant the applicant a protection visa. The Federal Magistrate dismissed the application for judicial review because the applicant had failed to comply with directions to file an amended application particularising the grounds of review.
2 The applicant is a national of India and his claims in support of the application for a protection visa were founded on his contention that as a Muslim from Gujarat he was at risk of harm both in that region and more generally in India. The Tribunal rejected that contention. It did so in circumstances where the applicant failed to appear at a scheduled hearing before the Tribunal on advice from friends. Plainly, the task of an applicant to establish jurisdictional error in those circumstances is a difficult one.
3 In my view it is not apparent that there was an error in the approach adopted by the Federal Magistrate having regard to the terms of the application before him and there is nothing in the draft notice of appeal or the application for leave which would suggest that the applicant has any arguable point to raise in any appeal.
4 Accordingly, the appropriate order is that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed. I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1000.
|
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore. |
Associate:
Dated: 19 April 2005
|
The Applicant appeared in person |
|
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Blake Dawson Waldron |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
23 March 2005 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
23 March 2005 |
