SZTOR v Minister for Immigration - [2015] FCCA 690

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZTOR & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2015] FCCA 690

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Persecution – review of Refugee Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) decision – visa – protection visa – refusal.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Allegation that the Tribunal’s decision affected by jurisdictional error by reason that a reasonable apprehension of bias attended it, the Tribunal breached s.424A of the Migration Act 1958 and failed to consider all the evidence.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958, ss.36, 91R, 424A, 474

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323
Lu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2004) 141 FCR 346
VAAD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 117
SZEHN v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1389
LVR (WA) Pty Ltd v Administrative Appeals Tribunal (2012) 203 FCR 166
SZSJA v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection (2013) 139 ALD 36

First Applicant:

SZTOR

Second Applicant:

SZTOS

Third Applicant:

SZTOT

Fourth Applicant:

SZTOU

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 2955 of 2013

Judgment of:

Judge Cameron

Hearing date:

10 March 2015

Date of Last Submission:

10 March 2015

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

27 March 2015

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicants:

Mr N. Dobbie of Dobbie and Devine Immigration Lawyers Pty Ltd

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Ms L. Buchanan of Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

The application be dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2955 of 2013

SZTOR

First Applicant

SZTOS

Second Applicant

SZTOT

Third Applicant

SZTOU

Fourth Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The applicants are Iranian citizens who arrived in Australia on 28 June 2012. On 23 July 2012 the first applicant lodged an application for a protection visa with what is now the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, alleging that she feared persecution in Iran because of her religion. Although her husband, the second applicant, contemporaneously lodged a separate protection visa application, his claim to fear persecution in Iran was based on her claims. The third and fourth applicants, who are the children of the first and second applicants, were included in the first applicant’s protection visa application as members of her family unit.
On 29 October 2012 the applicants’ applications were refused by a delegate of the first respondent (“Minister”). The applicants then applied to the second respondent (“Tribunal”) for a review of their departmental decisions. They were unsuccessful before the Tribunal and have applied to this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision.
In these judicial review proceedings the Court’s task is to determine whether the Tribunal’s decision is affected by jurisdictional error as that is the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading SZTOR v Minister for Immigration

Details

AGLC: SZTOR v Minister for Immigration [2015] FCCA 690
Case: [2015] FCCA 690
Decision Date: 27 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, SZTOR, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (Tribunal) to refuse his application for a protection visa. The core of the dispute concerned allegations that the Tribunal's decision was affected by jurisdictional error.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal's decision was vitiated by a reasonable apprehension of bias, whether the Tribunal breached section 424A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), and whether the Tribunal failed to consider all the evidence before it.

Judge Cameron found that the Tribunal had not breached section 424A of the *Migration Act* and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias. The court determined that the Tribunal had adequately considered the evidence presented by the applicant. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

Orders