FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
MZYCC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 524
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 424A
MZYCC and MZYCD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
VID 142 of 2009
MARSHALL J
20 MAY 2009
MELBOURNE
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY |
VID 142 of 2009 |
|
MZYCC First Appellant
MZYCD Second Appellant
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent
|
|
JUDGE: |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
20 MAY 2009 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
MELBOURNE |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The appellants pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY |
VID 142 of 2009 |
|
BETWEEN: |
MZYCC First Appellant
MZYCD Second Appellant
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent
|
|
JUDGE: |
MARSHALL J |
|
DATE: |
20 MAY 2009 |
|
PLACE: |
MELBOURNE |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 The appellants appeal from a judgment of Turner FM which dismissed their application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent Minister to refuse the first appellant a protection visa.
2 The appellants are husband and wife respectively. The first appellant applied for a protection visa. The second appellant’s application depended on the success of the first appellant’s case, being a member of his family unit.
3 The notice of appeal complains that the Federal Magistrate did not find a jurisdictional error in the reasons of the Tribunal, without identifying any such error. The appellants were unable to identify any jurisdictional error in the reasons of the Tribunal when making submissions this morning. An affidavit accompanying the notice of appeal referred to s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). It is not clear how that argument is made out and the submissions made this morning took that matter no further. That is unsurprising as there is nothing in the reasons for decision of the Tribunal to show that it relied on any particular information that was specifically about the first appellant or any other particular person; see s 424A(3).
4 The judgment below deals comprehensively with all matters raised before his Honour in support of the appellants’ claims. Essentially the appellants took issue with factual findings made by the Tribunal and with its failure to give the first appellant more time to present material. I have carefully considered the reasons for decision of the Tribunal and the reasons for judgment of the Court below. There is no jurisdictional error in the former and no appealable error in the latter. The Tribunal’s findings of fact were open to it and there is no evidence that the first appellant requested further time from the Tribunal to present his evidence. The appeal is dismissed, with costs.
|
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall. |
Associate:
Dated: 20 May 2009
|
The first Appellant represented himself and the second Appellant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondents: |
Ms S Burcnell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondents: |
DLA Phillips Fox |
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
20 May 2009 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
20 May 2009 |
