SZAXN v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from the judgment of Scarlett FM given on 26 November 2003, whereby his Honour held that the application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal placed before him did not disclose a reasonable cause of action (see SZAXN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) FMCA 560). By virtue of s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and Order 52 rule 10(2)(b) of the Federal Court Rules, it was first necessary for an application for leave to appeal to have been made within seven days of delivery of that interlocutory judgment. 2 The grounds of the application for leave are contained in a handwritten affidavit of the applicant, reading literally as follows (ie without correcting spelling etc): '1. I am a genuine refuge applicant under the United Nation Convention & Protocol. I do not speak, read & wright English. I have no idea and knowlege regarding the Federal Court procedure. I missed to apper befor the Honoral Federal Court because of my knoledge. 2. The RRT decision in my review application was the error of law, procedural fairness and the decision was made in bad faith. 3. The time limit to file and serve the Notice of Appeal. I hard that the 28 days from the date of judgement. Actually it is 21 days from the date of judgement. 4. I received the copy of the judgement in my mailing address late. 5. One of my friend informed me the the date of filing is 21 days last week. 6. For the ends of Justile and to get opportunity to filing the "Notice of Appeal I completed form 54A [Application for Extention of Time to File and Service Notice of Appeal". 7. For the seek of my misunderstanding, please accept and received my Notice of Appeal and give me the opportunity to appear befor the Federal Court.' I sought to obtain explanations from the applicant of those purported grounds, but the applicant was unable to provide the same, referring vaguely to a friend at Griffith as his source of information. 3 The proposed notice of appeal sets out the purported grounds, upon the assumption of course that leave be granted, reading again literally (ie without correcting spelling etc errors) as follows: '… 2. The Single judge of the Federal Magistrate Court in his Honors Judgment delivered on the 26 November 2003 failed to find error of law, Jurisdictional error Procedural fairness and relief under Section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903. 3. The grounds and relief is very much similar with a recent High Court Judgment - Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal; Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30 (8 August 2002). Catchwords: Immigration - Refugee - Protection visa - Decision by Minister to refuse application for visa - Review of decision by Refugee Review Tribunal - Obligation of Secretary of Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to give relevant documents to Register of Tribunal for purpose of review - Nature and extent of obligation - Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 148(3), 424(1). 4. The Honorable trial judge erred in considering the real state of affairs of the applicant, the applicant feared harm. And also the present ruling government fail to protect civilians life, which is a worldwide concern today. Honorable Trial judge did not take it into consideration. 5. S474 of the Migration Act is ineffective as per the recent two decision of the High Court of Australia. Honorabletrial judge did not consider this in favor of me. 6. The applicant will face persecution if she returns to his country of origin as there are significant level of violation of human rights, this was not considered by honourable judge. 7. Recent High Court judgement: Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia [2003] HCA 1 (4 February 2003). 8. Recent Federal Court of Australia judgement: SGDB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 74 (14 February 2003).' 4 None of those proposed grounds of appeal address either a basis in law, or any satisfactory or compelling explanation, for granting the extensions of time that are required. They do not address in particular any specific findings of Scarlett FM, much less distil any errors. The grounds set out appear to be a stereotype made available to the applicant by a third party having at least a rudimentary knowledge of migration law. I again questioned the applicant about the content and source of the material the subject of the notice of appeal, but again received vague information about a 'friend'. None of those grounds indicate any potentially viable basis for an appeal, if leave was to be granted out of time. 5 In the circumstances the application for leave must be refused with costs, the same being attended with no merit, either by way of plausible explanation for the delay in bringing the same, or in any event disclosing no conceivably viable grounds of appeal. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Conti.