THE PRESENT APPLICATION
10 The application for leave was filed 12 days out of time. The applicant asserts that he believed that he had 28 days within which to appeal to this Court and that he in fact only received the Federal Magistrate's order and judgment 28 days after it had been delivered. In his accompanying affidavit he goes on to indicate that his delay was not wilful nor wanton.
11 I consider his Draft Notice of Appeal is a singularly unilluminating document. It starts with the proposition that the Federal Magistrate "erred in law by not finding that the Refugee Review Tribunal had made a jurisdictional and factual error in reaching the conclusion that the Appellant is not entitled to Protection Visa." It then goes on simply to make assertions that the Tribunal failed to see that the applicant satisfied the definition of refugee; that the Tribunal erred in stating there was inconsistency between his application and the version in the Tribunal hearing; that the Tribunal was always one sided; that he had been denied a fair and proper trial and the principles of natural justice had been denied; that it relied on country information "rather than the real facts stated by the applicant"; and that the Tribunal had to "help the applicant find the truth and see appropriate protection is granted." The applicant was directed to file submissions in support of his application. None were filed.
12 The application itself is opposed by the first respondent, first because it is said no satisfactory reasons have been given explaining the delay, but, secondly and more importantly, because the case has no real prospects of success. For my own part I need not consider the question whether acceptable explanation for the delay was being given. I clearly am satisfied that the case to be prosecuted on the appeal has no prospects of success at all. The particular matters relied upon in the Notice of Appeal are concerned in the main with the merits of the matter. What is being objected to is reasoned fact finding by the Tribunal. I would note in passing that the applicant in his oral submissions sought to place real emphasis on what he considered were factual errors.
13 To the extent that the matters relied upon go beyond a claim for merits review, the grounds clearly are misconceived and in the case of the bias allegation, offensive. As I have already indicated, I am in complete agreement with the decision of the Federal Magistrate. There is nothing in the decision record of the Tribunal that provides any support at all for the allegation of bias and of a closed mind. The Tribunal member was simply discharging its obligation to the applicant when it sent the s 424A letter to the applicant. There is equally nothing to suggest that there has been anything other than a fair and proper hearing of his application. The Tribunal was entitled to prefer country information to the applicant's evidence, the moreso as it had material before it which amply justified its adverse credibility finding. Equally, the applicant misconceives the function of the Tribunal which is not to help the applicant make his case.
14 Because I am satisfied that an extension of time would serve no useful purpose and would not be in the interests of justice, I refuse the application.
15 I will order that the application for an extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal be dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding fifteen (15) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Finn.