SZFTC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
[2005] FCA 1744
•16 NOVEMBER 2005
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZFTC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2005] FCA 1744SZFTC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1471 of 2005
MADGWICK J
16 NOVEMBER 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD1471 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
SZFTC
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENTREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENTJUDGE:
MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:
16 NOVEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed with costs assessed at $1,100.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD1471 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
SZFTC
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENTREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
MADGWICK J
DATE:
16 NOVEMBER 2005
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MADGWICK J:
The appellant is a Chinese national who came to Australia on 29 May 2004. He appeals against a judgment given by Federal Magistrate Smith in the Federal Magistrates Court on 2 August 2005. His Honour dismissed with costs an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal given on 25 January 2005. The Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) had then affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse the appellant’s application for a protection visa.
The notice of appeal asserts the following grounds:
‘(a)The Tribunal failed to provide a rational and logical foundation for its decision.
(b)The Tribunal failed to consider my claims.
(c)Federal Magistrates Court did not carefully consider my appeal and made a decision on the same day of my hearing, my application was not made after careful consideration of the judge.’
The appellant’s claim to refugee status was based upon his alleged status as a local leader of the Falun Gong sect or movement. He claimed that in March 2004 the Chinese authorities learned of this covert role and of his involvement in hiding other Falun Gong members and helping members to leave China. The Tribunal had invited the appellant to give oral evidence and present arguments at its hearing, at the same time telling the appellant that, on all the material that was before it, it could not make a decision in his favour.
On 5 November 2004 the appellant told the Tribunal in writing that he did not wish to give oral evidence and consented to the Tribunal proceeding to make the decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable him to appear before it. Not surprisingly, the Tribunal member noted that she was not required to make the appellant’s case for him and rejected his claims for the principal reason that these claims lacked any useful detail and it could not be satisfied about them.
In the Court below his Honour dealt with the appellant’s assertions from the bar table that, although the Tribunal received a document carrying his signature and, indicating that he did not wish to turn up at the hearing, that had not been his wish at all. There is nothing to indicate that in the circumstances the appellant was not given a fair and full right to a hearing or that the procedures to ensure such a hearing contemplated by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) were not carried out by the Tribunal.
The Federal Magistrate otherwise dealt with the various matters which were complained of by the appellant in his grounds of application to the Federal Magistrates Court. His Honour found no substance in them.
The notice of appeal to this Court does not descend to particulars in relation to the first two grounds of appeal and on the face of the Tribunal’s reasons there is nothing to indicate that they can be sustained.
As to the third ground of appeal, a reading of the Federal Magistrate’s judgment indicates that his Honour did carefully consider the appellant’s case before him. That impression is in no way belied by the fact that his Honour was able to give his decision on the day of the hearing without reserving his decision. The appellant’s case was simple and had little merit. Likewise, here, his case is simple and has no merit and I am able to decide the matter without the need to adjourn to prepare reasons.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick. Associate:
Dated: 5 December 2005
Solicitor for the Applicant: The appellant appeared in person. Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 16 November 2005 Date of Judgment: 16 November 2005
0
0