SZJJV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] FCA 767

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJJV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 767

SZJJV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 2189 OF 2007

MOORE  J
27 FEBRUARY 2008
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2189 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

SZJJV
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MOORE  J
DATE OF ORDER:	27 FEBRUARY 2008
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed with costs.

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 2189 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

SZJJV
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MOORE  J
DATE:	27 FEBRUARY 2008
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate, who on 25 October 2007 (see SZJJV v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 1719) dismissed an application for judicial review of a determination of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 26 August 2006. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa. The appellant's notice of appeal fails to particularise any errors of the Federal Magistrate and repeats a number of contentions about the failure of the Tribunal to deal properly or adequately with the appellant’s application for review before it.

2. In the hearing of the appeal the appellant averted to two matters. Firstly, he says the Tribunal failed to consider the application in accordance with s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), although no particulars were given of that failure. In the notice of appeal the appellant contends that the Tribunal failed to notify him of the reason, or part of the reasons for affirming the decision and that he did not have the opportunity to comment upon the reasons.

3. This contention involves a misapprehension of the duty the Tribunal has under s 424A. It does not involve, or extend to, the provision of reasons for decisions and affording the affected party an opportunity to comment on them. The other matter raised in oral submissions by the appellant was that the Tribunal did not reasonably assess the persecution he would suffer if he went back to China and again, no particulars were given of the Tribunal’s failure in that regard.

4. A not dissimilar issue was raised in the proceedings before the Federal Magistrate, at least in the sense that the Federal Magistrate noted the reasons why the Tribunal had formed the view that any adverse consequences on the appellant were he to return to China would not engage the Refugees Convention.  It is not apparent to me that the reasoning of the Federal Magistrate, having regard to the Tribunal’s decision, is wrong in this regard.  Accordingly, the appellant has failed to demonstrate any error on the part of the Federal Magistrate and I propose to dismiss the appeal with costs.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore .

Associate:

Dated :      26 May 2008

The Appellant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	27 February 2008
Date of Judgment:	27 February 2008