FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZGYO v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 758

SZGYO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 375 OF 2007

MADGWICK J

9 MAY 2007

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 375 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZGYO

Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	9 MAY 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal fixed at $1300.

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 375 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZGYO

Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	9 MAY 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR

1 This is an appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court. It concerns a judgment of Scarlett FM who dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision, adverse to the appellant, of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).

2 The appellant claimed to be a person who feared persecution by reason of his adherence to the Falun Gong or Falun Dafa movement. The Tribunal comprehensively disbelieved the appellant for reasons which it gave. The grounds upon which judicial review were sought in the Court below were very general and unspecific. His Honour thought that the Tribunal had considered the matter properly and, as far as he could see, without error of law. He said:

The Applicant is not legally represented and I have read through the decision thoroughly myself in order to ascertain whether any arguable case can be made for any other jurisdictional error. I am satisfied that there is no jurisdictional error apparent in this decision.

3 I have also read the Tribunal’s decision and likewise I see no sign of jurisdictional error. The appeal will be dismissed with costs, assessed in the sum of $1,300.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:

Dated: 9 May 2007

Counsel for the Appellant:	The appellant appeared in person

Counsel for the First Respondent:	Clayton Utz

Date of Hearing:	9 May 2007

Date of Judgment:	9 May 2007

Top