FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZTHT v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 100
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
Appellant | |
AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs, as agreed or taxed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | NSD 1066 of 2014 |
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
BETWEEN: | SZTHT Appellant |
AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent |
JUDGE: | EDMONDS J |
DATE: | 17 FEBRUARY 2015 |
PLACE: | SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court (Barnes J) given on 30 September 2014: SZTHT v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection & Anor [2014] FCCA 2396, dismissing an application for review of a decision of the second respondent (“Tribunal”), dated 28 August 2013, affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent (“Minister”) refusing to grant the appellant a Protection (Class XA) visa (“protection visa”).
Background
2 The relevant factual background is summarised at [2] of the Federal Circuit Court’s reasons for judgment below (“R”), and is touched upon in reciting the claims of the appellant in subsequent passages in R [4]–[23]. Those same paragraphs summarise the findings and reasons of the Tribunal in reaching its decision to affirm the delegate’s decision, in some respects accepting the appellant’s evidence, but in many other respects rejecting it.
Application for Review
3 The appellant’s application for review before the primary judge relied on two grounds. The first ground was that the Tribunal failed to carry out its statutory duty. There is one particular to this ground. It is that the Tribunal failed to give any real consideration to Australia’s protection obligations as set out in s 36(2)(a) and s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“Act”).
4 This first ground was said to be manifested in a number of ways, and these are summarised and dealt with by the court below at R [27]–[60]. The court concluded at R [61], correctly in my view, that it had not been established that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error in any of the ways contended for in relation to this first ground.
5 The second ground relied on below was a contention that the Tribunal’s decision was affected by apprehended bias. The particulars were that the Tribunal had an “insufficient basis to reject all of the applicant’s evidence and find that he was not a witness of credit” and that the Tribunal’s reasoning “does not disclose that it brought an open mind to its task”.
6 The court dealt with the appellant’s contention on this ground at R [62]–[72], and drew its conclusion at R [73]–[76]. Ultimately, at R [77], the court concluded that it was not satisfied that either actual or apprehended bias was established in the manner contended for in ground two of the application. I agree with that conclusion.
Appeal
7 Before this Court the appellant appeals from the whole of the judgment of the Federal Circuit Court. The notice of appeal states that the appellant relies on “the arguments, grounds and particulars that were provided with my previous Federal Circuit Court application.” The notice of appeal also contains the following words:
I will file and serve a further detailed submission after I’ve lodged my Federal Court application with the detailed grounds and why I do not agree with the RRT decision.
8 Further written submissions of the appellant were filed in the registry of this Court yesterday. They do not, in my view, advance the appellant’s case. Neither the appellant’s grounds nor the further written submissions address the judgment given by the Federal Circuit Court below, or identify any error in that judgment. To the extent that the appellant asserts disagreement with the merits of the Tribunal decision, I have endeavoured to explain to the appellant that such disagreement is not a basis on which this Court can provide him with relief.
9 The Federal Circuit Court found no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision. In my view, that conclusion was correct, and no appealable error is disclosed by the court’s reasons.
Conclusion
10 The appeal must be dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Edmonds. |
Associate:
