FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZIHN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 747
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 412
SZIHN and SZIHO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 289 OF 2008
TAMBERLIN J
7 MAY 2008
SYDNEY
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
NSD 289 OF 2008 |
|
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
BETWEEN: |
SZIHN First Appellant
SZIHO Second Appellant
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent
|
|
TAMBERLIN J |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
7 MAY 2008 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
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.
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
NSD 289 OF 2008 |
|
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
BETWEEN: |
SZIHN First Appellant
SZIHO Second Appellant
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent
|
|
JUDGE: |
TAMBERLIN J |
|
DATE: |
7 MAY 2008 |
|
PLACE: |
SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an appeal from a decision of a Federal Magistrate of 15 February 2008 which dismissed the appellants’ application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), which in turn had affirmed the decision of a delegate of the first respondent (“the Minister”).
2 The essential question involved is whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a decision of the delegate. It is common ground in this matter that the time limit for lodging the appeal with the Tribunal, which is stipulated by s 412 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”), was not complied with. I have considered the reasons for decision given by the Federal Magistrate dealing with this question, in which her Honour considers the arguments advanced and sets out the relevant provisions of the Act and comes to the conclusion that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application. Her Honour concluded that the Minister had complied with the legislative scheme in giving notification of the delegate’s decision, and the applicants failed to comply within the prescribed timeframe.
3 In those circumstances, it is not necessary to enter into any consideration of the merits of the matter. For the reasons given by the Federal Magistrate in this matter, I am satisfied that the appeal in the present case must be dismissed.
4 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, with costs, as taxed or agreed.
|
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin. |
Associate:
Dated: 22 May 2008
|
Counsel for the Appellants: |
The appellants appeared in person |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondents: |
Mr D Godwin |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondents: |
Australian Government Solicitor |
|
Date of Hearing: |
7 May 2008 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
7 May 2008 |
