The grounds of appeal
11 The appellant raises only two grounds of appeal. It is to these grounds of appeal that consideration must be given in order to weigh their strength or otherwise.
12 Ground 1 makes two claims as to the appellant's claimed fear of harm at the hands of the Albanian authorities should he be returned to Albania. First, the appellant claims that the decision makers have relied on country information which does not take into account the risk of harm of imprisonment faced by returnees to Albania deported from another country. Second, the appellant claims that there was no consideration by the primary judge of a risk that the appellant would be exposed to serious harm at the instance of the Albanian authorities in relation to his departure from Albania using a fraudulent Italian passport. The appellant further claims that the second claim had been implicitly included in his claimed fear of harm generally.
13 As to the first claim in Ground 1, the ITOA assessor considered this and set out relevant finding in the RRT's reasons at [43]. These were as follows:
I acknowledge that since the claimant's previous protection claims were assessed by the RRT, the circumstances relating to him have changed as a consequence of the website disclosure incident. On the presumption that the authorities in Albania may have accessed the information released on the department's website, I accept that they may be aware that the claimant has applied for refugee status in Australia. However, there is no evidence to indicate that failed asylum seekers face persecution or significant harm on return to Albania.
These findings were accepted, as identified by the primary judge at Reasons [5(b)].
14 This first claim amounts to an impermissible challenge to the factual findings based on country information employed by the RRT: see SZVBT v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 355 at [49] and SZMWQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another (2010) 117 ALD 1, 30 at [117] per Flick J. Moreover, this challenge relies upon the appellant's mere assertion that he is aware, anecdotally, of such things happening to unnamed people returning to Albania.
15 As to second claim in Ground 1, there is nothing in the appellant's grounds of appeal in the court below, nor in the claims before the Minister's delegate and the RRT, which expressly or implicitly raised this claim. That the applicant arrived in Australia on a fraudulent Italian passport was a factual assertion which was not controversial and was accepted by the Minister's delegate and the RRT in their respective decisions. As I have previously noted in [3] of these reasons, the appellant's claims before both the Minister's delegate and the RRT concerned a chance of persecution in the reasonably foreseeable future from the Albanian authorities only in relation to the crimes of which the appellant claimed he was wrongfully accused.
16 The RRT had found that there were no substantial grounds for there being a real risk that the appellant will suffer significant harm at the hands of the Albanian authorities. Significantly, this claimed fear of significant harm was not based upon the fact that the appellant had illegally departed Albania with a "false Italian passport" which is the new claim set out in Ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal.
17 None of the 22 grounds of appeal raised before the Federal Circuit Court made any suggestion as to the appellant's use of the fraudulent Italian passport, or to any failure by the Minister's delegate or the RRT to consider any risk of serious or significant harm that the appellant faced at the hands of the Albanian authorities as a result.
18 Ground 2 merely asserts that '[t]here was no satisfactory judgement from the Federal Circuit Court'. This is incapable of disclosing relevant error, completely devoid, as it is, of any particulars.
19 I accept the appellant's assertion that the grounds of appeal and his affidavit were drawn by him with the assistance of other detainees in the detention centre where he has been held. This is so, despite the semblance of reasonably well-versed legal language employed in the documents. Accordingly, I have considered the reasons for judgment of the primary judge for myself but am unable to discern any relevant error.
20 The appellant did not file written submissions in support of his application for injunctive relief. His oral submissions were not directed to the grounds of appeal but were instead a generalised complaint that the reasons as to his asserted fear of harm (should he be returned to Albania) have not been thoroughly considered.
21 The appellant also made certain allegations in his oral submissions that the Department was making it difficult for him to prepare his appeal including his application for injunctive relief. I am unable to form any conclusions as to these concerns. However, as I said, I have carefully considered the grounds of appeal. I have also considered the reasons of the Minister's delegate, the RRT and the Court below. Not only can I not discern relevant error, I am satisfied that the reasons of the primary judge are correct, and that the appellant's new ground of appeal, raised at the eleventh hour, is wholly without merit. The appellant's case does not have a sufficient likelihood of success: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57, 68 at [19] and 82 at [65]. Indeed, I consider that it has no prospect of success whatsoever. In these circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider the balance of convenience.
22 For these reasons, the appellant's application falls short of establishing the grounds for the making of an interlocutory injunction to restrain his removal from Australia and must be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding twenty-two (22) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gilmour.