MZXAI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 1116

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZXAI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2006] FCA 1116

MIGRATION – appeal from Federal Magistrate – no question of principle – appeal dismissed

MZXAI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

VID 244 OF 2006

MARSHALL J
22 AUGUST 2006
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 244 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MZXAI
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 AUGUST 2006
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.The appellant 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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 244 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MZXAI
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	22 AUGUST 2006
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The appellant appeals from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court which dismissed his 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 that the appellant was not entitled to a protection visa.

2. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to India in the reasonably foreseeable future. His Honour below rejected the following points raised on behalf of the appellant:

   ·the Tribunal’s decision lacked logic;

   ·the Tribunal failed to determine whether the appellant was a member of a particular social group;

   ·the Tribunal erroneously rejected letters of support for the appellant; and

   ·the Tribunal failed to consider the issue of relocation within India.

3. His Honour in the Court below correctly dismissed each of the appellant’s submissions on the above issues. The Tribunal’s reasons did not lack logic but disclosed a reasoning process and were not internally inconsistent. The Tribunal correctly assessed that the appellant was not a member of the social group constituted by members of the People’s War Group. In any event, that was a question of fact for it to determine.

4. The Tribunal’s rejection of the letters was a matter going to the merits of its decision and did not involve any judicially reviewable error. Further, the question of internal relocation did not arise on the basis of the reasoning of the Tribunal that the appellant was not at risk of persecution. The Tribunal did not consider that the appellant was at risk of persecution from the People’s War Group. That was a question of fact for it to determine. It found that the People’s War Group would not consider the appellant to be a police informer, as he claimed it would.

5. The appellant’s notice of appeal contends his Honour in the Court below erred in finding that the Tribunal’s decision was not affected by a jurisdictional error. He did not identify any such error in his oral submissions. He failed to file any written submissions. Having read the decision of the Tribunal, and the analysis of it in the Court below, I do not consider that the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error in its consideration of the appellant’s claim for a protection visa.

6. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.

Associate:

Dated:       23 August 2006

The appellant represented himself.
Counsel for the Respondents:	Mr E Heerey
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	22 August 2006
Date of Judgment:	22 August 2006