Anavaratham v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

BLACK CJ 1 This is an appeal from a decision of Justice Ryan, rejecting the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse the appellant a protection visa. The relevant facts, and the grounds on which the appellant sought review of the Tribunal's decision, are set out in his Honour's reasons: See Anavaratham v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 903. We have closely read his Honour's reasons, and the other papers filed in this appeal. 2 The appellant's notice of appeal dated 6 August 2001 contains two grounds: "1. The learned judge erred in failing to hold that the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") erred by not engaging itself in reasonable speculation as to the chances of persecution upon me returning to Sri Lanka. 2. The learned judge erred in failing to find that the Tribunal had incorrectly applied the test as laid down by the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, namely that it did not take into account that as it was not possible for me to return to India and live there without being deported to Sri Lanka." 3 It is important to understand that the role of the Court in a case such as this is a limited one. Under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), the Tribunal has the function of determining what are the merits of an application for a protection visa. Under Part 8 of the Act, there is a right to apply for judicial review to this Court on limited grounds of a legal and not factual nature. The learned primary judge examined with care the legal arguments that were said to give rise to points of law in this case and he concluded that those arguments had not been made out. For ourselves, we do not find any error in the learned primary judge's conclusion that no ground for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision had been made out in this case. 4 Mr Anavaratham sought before us, as he did before Ryan J, to argue various questions of fact about matters that were of great concern to him. I would again point out, however, that questions of fact are for the Tribunal to determine and it is not for this Court to look again at the facts of the case, or to receive further evidence, or review the facts in the manner sought by Mr Anavaratham. The result is that, in our opinion, the appeal from the decision of the learned primary judge must be dismissed, with costs. HILL J 5 I agree with the reasons given by the Chief Justice and with the orders that his Honour has proposed. TAMBERLIN J 6 I also agree with the reasons of the Chief Justice and the orders proposed. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Court.