SZISH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 1622

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZISH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1622

SZISH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1601 OF 2006

MADGWICK J
17 NOVEMBER 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1601 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZISH
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 NOVEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed with costs, assessed in the sum of $2500.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1601 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZISH
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	17 NOVEMBER 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court.  Scarlett FM dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) which was adverse to the appellant.  The only grounds of the application before his Honour which might conceivably have given rise to a conclusion that the Tribunal had made some jurisdictional error was the suggestion that the Tribunal was biased, and that the Tribunal ‘did not consider’ (which might charitably be read as a suggestion that the Tribunal failed to consider) the appellant’s claim that he would be prosecuted (and persecuted) if he returns to China.

2. The appellant’s claim had been that he was a Falun Gong practitioner who had been persecuted, and who would face more of the same if he returned to China, his native land.  Despite due notification to him of the customary, legally requisite invitation to attend before the Tribunal, the appellant did not do so and, in view of the generality of the claims, the Tribunal was not satisfied of their veracity.  The learned Federal Magistrate rightly held that there was no indication of bias or anything else that might be thought to show an arguable case of jurisdictional error.

3. In his notice of appeal, the appellant asserts that:

   ‘1.It is not reasonable for the Tribunal to make the finding just because I did not provide details of my experience when I was in China.

   2.The Tribunal failed to give procedural fairness.

   3.The Tribunal failed to consider the whole of my case.’

4. The answer to these complaints respectively is, first, the Tribunal displayed no gross illogicality, and mere factual criticisms of its approach would not entitle the appellant to the relief which he sought in the Federal Magistrates Court.  Second, there is nothing to indicate a failure to afford the appellant procedural fairness.  Third, there is nothing to indicate that the Tribunal overlooked any important part of the material which the appellant had put before the Tribunal. 

5. The appeal will be dismissed with costs.  The costs are assessed in the sum of $2500.

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

Associate:

Dated:       24 November 2006

Counsel for the Appellant:	The Appellant appeared in person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	17 November 2006
Date of Judgment:	17 November 2006