FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZUDA v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 160
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
Applicant | |
AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application is dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent as agreed or taxed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | NSD 1365 of 2014 |
BETWEEN: | SZUDA Applicant |
AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent |
JUDGE: | FARRELL J |
DATE: | 3 March 2015 |
PLACE: | SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the judgment of Judge Lloyd-Jones of the Federal Circuit Court delivered on 14 November 2014: see SZUDA v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2014] FCCA 2553. The primary judge dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 25 February 2014. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister made on 15 August 2013 to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa.
2 The application was supported by an affidavit of the applicant in which he indicated that he thought that the period in which he could file a notice of appeal was 28 days; the period is 21 days under r 36.03(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). In fact, the application for extension of time and draft notice of appeal was filed on 22 December 2014, 38 days after the primary judge’s decision was pronounced. The Minister accepted that no prejudice would be occasioned to him were the extension to be granted.
3 In his application, the applicant pleads three grounds, which are (without alteration):
1. RRT has bias against me as I was deprived of the benefits of doubts.
2. RRT has denied me procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate reasons for the finding of a fact.
3. RRT unfairly reviewed my case. The Tribunal did not examine the risk of the persecution I will face if return to China.
4 The Minister provided written submissions and was represented at the hearing.
5 The applicant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter. He did not provide written submissions in support of his application.
6 I explained to the applicant at the hearing that the primary issue was whether the proposed grounds of appeal had merit. When I asked the applicant if he wished to make any submissions in relation to the first ground, he declined. When I asked the applicant if he wished to make any submissions in relation to the second ground he indicated that he wished to abandon his application.
7 I have closely reviewed the Tribunal’s Statement of Decision and Reasons and the reasons of the primary judge in light of the proposed grounds of appeal. I have identified no jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal and no appellable error in the reasoning of the primary judge. I therefore consider that the proposed grounds of appeal lack merit.
8 I dismissed the application and ordered that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs as agreed or taxed.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Farrell. |
