SZNZX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

The appellant, a citizen of Bangladesh, appealed against a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court which dismissed his application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal had upheld a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa. The appellant claimed to fear persecution if returned to Bangladesh on account of his religion and imputed political opinion. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant faced a real chance of persecution in Bangladesh, simply for being a Buddhist or a Buddhist monk. The sole ground of appeal was that the Tribunal failed to consider a medical report submitted by the appellant. The report, from a clinical psychologist, outlined symptoms consistent with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Dysthymic Disorder, which the appellant claimed were the result of persecution in Bangladesh.

The court found that the Tribunal did not ignore the letter from the psychologist. The Tribunal had observed that it had considered the evidence before it and that the letter was on the Tribunal's file. The court held that there was no obligation for the Tribunal, in its decision, to refer to each particular piece of evidence before it and that failure to do so does not amount to evidence that it has not been considered. The court further observed that the appellant did not rely on the letter in support of his claims. The Red Cross had forwarded the letter to the first respondent's department in support of gaining some financial assistance to the appellant. The court held that the letter was not particularly relevant to any claim advanced before the Tribunal and may have been treated in that way by it. The court noted that the letter merely suggests that the appellant may have been the victim of some adverse conduct and did not raise any claim on behalf of the appellant separate from those advanced by him and considered by the Tribunal.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal. The court held that the judgment below was free of appealable error. The court rejected the sole ground of review relied on by the appellant and held that no jurisdictional error had been established. The court observed that the letter did not assist the appellant in making out his claim for refugee status and was a request for financial assistance based on the mental status of the appellant derived from harm which was said to have befallen him in Bangladesh. The court held that the letter begged the question whether that harm was inflicted for a Convention reason or whether such harm would be likely to occur if the appellant was returned to Bangladesh. The court held that this was not a case where the letter raised an issue, which if resolved one way, would have been dispositive of the review before the Tribunal. The court concluded that the judgment below was correct and the appeal must be dismissed, with costs.