SZJWS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2007] FCA 1153

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJWS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1153

SZJWS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 718 OF 2007

TAMBERLIN J
30 JULY 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 718 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZJWS
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 JULY 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be 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 718 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZJWS
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	30 JULY 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a decision of a Federal Magistrate which rejected an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), which in turn affirmed the decision by a delegate of the first respondent not to grant the appellant a protection visa.

2. The appellant is a citizen of India who arrived in Australia on 6 May 2006 and lodged an application for a protection visa.  The application was refused by the delegate on 8 July 2006. On 3 August 2006 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.

3. The Tribunal’s decision makes it clear that the reason for rejecting the appellant’s claim for a protection visa was that the Tribunal found there were inconsistencies in the evidence given by the appellant in relation to a number of matters.  These are set out in detail in the Tribunal’s findings and reasons for decision.  Although the Tribunal accepted some of the appellant’s evidence, it was not prepared to accept the critical matters on which his case turned.  Accordingly, the Tribunal formed the view that the appellant’s evidence was implausible and lacking in credibility in a number of significant respects.

4. When the matter came on for hearing before me, the appellant appeared in person and said that he did not recall receiving a copy of the written submissions by the respondent on this appeal.  Accordingly, I adjourned the Court for the purposes of giving the appellant an opportunity to consider those submissions with the assistance of an interpreter.

5. After the Court resumed, the appellant was invited to make oral submissions.  He simply stated that the Federal Magistrate and, in particular, the Tribunal were in error in coming to their conclusions and not accepting his evidence.  However, no reasons or details were given as to the erroneous reliance on specific evidence or specific reasoning which would amount to appealable error.  In addition, the appellant reiterated his opinion that his life was at risk.  The first of these matters goes to the merits of the case and the second is simply an assertion of belief.  Neither assists the Court in identifying the error claimed to be present in the decision of the Tribunal and the Federal Magistrate.

6. Turning to the Notice of Appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.  The first ground contends that the Tribunal and the Federal Magistrate were in error in reaching their conclusions.  It asserts that both the oral and written evidence of the appellant was detailed and consistent, and therefore the Federal Magistrate erred in not accepting that evidence.  This is simply another way of stating that the appellant disagrees with the findings of fact made by the Tribunal and Federal Magistrate.  It does not provide any basis for upsetting those findings.  Accordingly, I reject this ground of appeal.

7. The second ground of appeal was that the Tribunal was biased in reaching its conclusion.  This submission was not substantiated in either the Notice of Appeal or in oral submission in Court.  No attempt was made to refer to the transcript of the Tribunal proceedings or any feature of its reasoning which might warrant a finding of bias, either apprehended or deliberate.  In the absence of any evidence at all to indicate bias on the part of the Tribunal, I reject this submission.  In particular, I find the reasoning of the Tribunal to be considered and balanced.  Indeed, this ground of appeal is further weakened by the fact that the Tribunal gave an opportunity to the appellant to make further submissions after the hearing had ceased and address some specific matters which concerned the Tribunal.

8. The third ground of appeal was that the Federal Magistrate was biased in reaching his conclusion.  Again, there is no evidence whatsoever to support this submission, and I was not directed to any aspect the decision which would in any way suggest that the learned Federal Magistrate was possessed of actual or apprehended bias.

9. Accordingly, I find that there is no substance in any of the grounds raised in the Notice of Appeal.  Consequently, I dismiss the appeal 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 Tamberlin.

Associate:

Dated:       3 August 2007

Counsel for the Appellant:	None
Solicitor for the Appellant:	None
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr G. Johnson
Solicitor for the Respondent:	DLA Phillips Fox
Date of Hearing:	30 July 2007
Date of Judgment:	30 July 2007