AR v Immigration and Protection Tribunal

[2017] NZHC 2982

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2015-404-003142

[2017] NZHC 2982

UNDER

Section 247 of the Immigration Act 2009 and the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

IN THE MATTER

of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol

BETWEEN

AR
Appellant

AND

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER

Second Respondent

Hearing:	30 November 2017
Appearances:	Appellant in person with BA Johnson as McKenzie friend SM Earl on instruction from MJ Hodge for Respondents
Judgment:	4 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 4 December 2017 at 1 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland.

AR v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2017] NZHC 2982 [4 December 2017]

Copy to: Applicant.

[1]                 AR seeks, but was declined, refugee status and protected person status by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. On 24 August 2017 I dismissed an appeal and related judicial review proceeding brought by AR against that determination.1 AR wishes to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[2]                 Leave is required. Leave may be granted only if the proposed appeal involves a question of law which, because of its general or public importance, or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal.2 The gateway is deliberately narrow. Error-correction is not anticipated.3

[3]                 AR is self-represented, albeit his submissions have clearly had the benefit of forensic help. But, they identify no question of law. No question of law was identified at the hearing either, at which AR was (helpfully) assisted by a McKenzie friend.

[4]                 AR’s case on appeal and by way of judicial review was that credibility assessment in an immigration context requires the identification of a clear methodology applicable to all, or at least typical, cases in this area. AR contended attendant principle was unclear, or at least unfit for purpose. Appellate intervention was commended as both desirable and necessary.

[5]                 I rejected these arguments for the reasons set out in my judgment, which I do not repeat, beyond observing decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal have settled principle in this context,4 and AR’s case involved the outright rejection of his claim by the Tribunal.

[6]                 I am unpersuaded any true question of law arises of general or public importance that can be realistically grounded in the facts of this case:

1      AR v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2017] NZHC 2039.

2      Immigration Act 2009, ss 246 and 249B.

3      Nabou v Minister of Immigration [2012] NZHC 3365, [2013] NZAR 155 at [6].

4      See Attorney-General (Minister of Immigration) v Tamil X [2010] NZSC 107, [2011] 1 NZLR 721; Jiao v Refugee Status Appeals Authority [2003] NZAR 647 (CA); and BV v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2014] NZCA 594, [2015] NZAR 139.

(a)The law in this area is settled. Indeed, the Court of Appeal described it as “well settled” as recently as 2014.5

(b)There is nothing to suggest the Tribunal’s approach is problematical, or contrary to either domestic law or international law.

(c)There are obvious difficulties in seeking to conceptualise—with all embracing methodology—a subject as practical as credibility assessment.

(d)The Tribunal comprehensively rejected AR’s claim. In short, it did not believe him. AR expressly accepted as much (during his reply submission on this application).

[7]                 AR sought to adduce further evidence in support of the proposed appeal: a brief affidavit sworn by him on 25 September 2017. In the affidavit, AR says a member of the Tribunal began an interview by telling him, “I don’t believe you”. AR implies the Tribunal was biased, and approached its task with a closed mind.

[8]                 These allegations were not ventilated during the appeal or judicial review proceeding, do not constitute fresh evidence, and lack cogency.

[9]                 The application to adduce further evidence is dismissed. So too the application for leave to appeal.

……………………………..

Downs J

5      BV v Immigration and Protection Tribunal, above n 4, at [6].