MZADY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2015] FCA 816

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZADY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 816

Citation:	MZADY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 816
Appeal from:	MZADY v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2015] FCCA 1490
Parties:	MZADY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File number:	VID 264 of 2015
Judge:	JESSUP J
Date of judgment:	6 August 2015
Legislation:	Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 36
Date of hearing:	6 August 2015
Place:	Melbourne
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	5
Counsel for the Appellant:	The appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondents:	T Goodwin
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 264 of 2015

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MZADY
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	JESSUP J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 AUGUST 2015
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 264 of 2015

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MZADY
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	JESSUP J
DATE:	6 AUGUST 2015
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia given on 13 May 2015.  That judgment was made on an application by the applicant for a judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal published on 30 April 2014.  I have read the reasons of the primary Judge and had the benefit of written submissions filed on behalf of the respondent Minister, each of which has provided me with a sufficient insight into the facts of the case and the procedural background to this appeal.

2. The appellant did not file a written submission conformably with orders which had been made by the Registrar, and has frankly acknowledged in Court this morning that he is in no position to make any useful submission to me as to how the primary Judge was in error in the disposition of his application.  In the circumstances, the only propositions which represent the position of the appellant and which are before the Court are his two grounds of appeal, the first of which contends that the primary Judge was biased against him, and the second of which contends that his Honour failed to examine the fear of persecution which the appellant would face if he were to return to Canada and failed to assess his claims in accordance with subss 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

3. The allegation of bias is a very serious one to make against a Judge, and it is unsatisfactory, to say the least, that the appellant has not supported it with any factual or argumentative material.  That ground of appeal must be rejected. 

4. The second ground appears to be based on the misapprehension that it was the primary Judge’s role to look at the material and to examine the strength of the appellant’s claim that he would fear persecution if he had to return to Canada and to assess his claims conformably with subss 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Act.  Those were the functions of the Tribunal.  The function of the primary Judge was only to consider whether the Tribunal’s decision was infected by a jurisdictional error of a kind that would be justiciable under the provisions upon which the appellant moved in the Federal Circuit Court.  The second ground also, therefore, must be rejected. 

5. There is nothing more I can say about this appeal, which, for reasons which will have become clear, appears to be conspicuously without merit.  I order that the appeal be dismissed. 

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jessup.

Associate:

Dated:        13 August 2015