SZBJW v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

In the case of SZBJW v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, the appellant, a citizen of Bangladesh, sought to appeal against the refusal of his application for a protection visa. He argued that the tribunal's decision was flawed due to procedural unfairness, breaches of sections 424A and 425 of the Act, and illogicality. The appellant claimed to be an active member of the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) and argued that he had a well-founded fear of persecution from the Awami League, which was in power in Bangladesh at the time. The delegate of the Minister refused the appellant's application on 29 June 2000, and the appellant applied for review by the RRT on 5 July 2000. After a hearing on 11 February 2003, the RRT rejected the appellant's claim, finding him to be an unreliable witness and noting inconsistencies in his evidence.

The appellant's application for review stated three broad and unparticularised grounds, which were rejected by the Federal Magistrate. The grounds of appeal were also broad and unparticularised, and the court found that the appellant had failed to raise a new ground of appeal without leave. The court noted that leave to argue a new ground should only be granted if it is expedient in the interests of justice to do so. The court held that the appellant's grounds did not meet this threshold as they contained bald assertions of error of law and denial of procedural fairness.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs in the proceedings. The court held that the RRT's reasons for rejecting the appellant's claim were capable of supporting the conclusions, and there was no jurisdictional error. The court found that the appellant had failed to provide an adequate explanation for the failure to raise the new ground of appeal below and that there was no prejudice to the respondent in permitting the point to be agitated. The court held that the approach taken in migration cases was to be contrasted with the stricter rules stated by Allsop J in Branir v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Limited (2001) 117 FCR 424 at [34] – [39].