11 The Federal Magistrate rejected the appellant's claims to have been denied natural justice. He referred to s 422B of the Act which provides that Division 4 of Part 7 of the Act contains an exhaustive statement of the requirements of natural justice, citing the Full Court decisions in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Lay Lat [2006] FCAFC 61 and SZCIJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCAFC 62. His Honour continued at [45]:
"I accept as submitted by the First Respondent that the Tribunal, as part of its fact finding process, has simply made findings in a manner free of jurisdictional error and has not denied the Applicant procedural fairness. In my view this ground effectively seeks to revisit the evidence and/or assert that other evidence should have been given further consideration by the Tribunal. That in my view is insufficient to support this ground and accordingly the ground should fail."
12 The Federal Magistrate found that the Tribunal had, at all times, complied with s 424A of the Act (which appears in Division 4), and proceeded in a manner free of jurisdictional error. In particular, his Honour had regard to the Tribunal's treatment of evidence provided in support of the appellant's claim, noting that the Tribunal had taken into account the allegations made by the appellant and had given proper attention to the evidence before it.
APPEAL TO THIS COURT
13 On 1 June 2007, the appellant filed a notice of appeal in this Court. The grounds of the appeal are:
"a) The learned Magistrate erred in accepting the first respondent's submission that the misinterpretation of section 91R of the Migration Act 1958 does not lead to jurisdictional error.
b) The learned Magistrate erred in concluding the manner in which the second respondent dealt with the question of state protection does not demonstrate any jurisdictional error when in fact the second respondent admitted that the appellant has been threatened and 'even sum(sic) incidents are unable to be prevented". The finding that the appellant could avail the state protection was not supported by the evidence and demonstrates the fixed mind set of the second respondent which could be regarded as an unreasonable finding or the worst a finding tarnished with apprehended bias.
c) The learned Magistrate's finding that the second respondent can selectively use the country information to support its finding without considering the country information which was favourable to the appellant was a wrong approach. The appellant submits that this was not an exercise of effectively seeking to revisit the evidence but an act of jurisdictional error by the second respondent for want of unreasonableness/no evidence.
d) The learned Magistrate erred in not finding that the second respondent breached s.420 of the Migration Act but not ensuring the process of review was fair, just and according to substantial justice and merit of the case.
e) The learned Magistrate ignored that the Tribunal has not considered the integer claims."
No particulars were provided. Some of the grounds were not advanced before the Court below.
CONSIDERATION
14 The appellant appeared in person. He had the assistance of an interpreter.
15 The appellant advised the Court that he was not the author of the notice of appeal. It was drawn for him by a legal friend acting on his instructions. The appellant advised the Court that he had not read or had translated for him either the Tribunal's reasons or those of the Federal Magistrate. He said that he gave instructions for the drawing of the notice of appeal on the basis of what other people had told him appeared in those reasons.
16 I asked the appellant to identify the integer claims to which he referred in ground (e). He referred to a number of claims which do, in fact, appear in the Tribunal's reasons both in the narrative and findings sections. This was one of the grounds that was not argued before the Federal Magistrate and therefore it is not open to the appellant to argue, in any event, that the learned Magistrate ignored a failure on the part of the Tribunal to consider such claims.
17 The appellant was unable to assist the Court by pointing to any passage in the Federal Magistrate's reasons in which he accepted a submission by the Minister that a misinterpretation of s 91R of the Act did not lead to jurisdictional error.
18 The appellant complained about a lack of time to prepare for the hearing. I reject this claim. He was notified of the fixture in mid June 2007. On 19 July 2007 he was sent the appeal book and a covering letter explaining the procedural steps which needed to be taken in advance of the hearing. He said that he had not had sufficient time to assemble documents going to the current situation in Sri Lanka. He had consulted a solicitor who had advised him that it would take time to obtain such material. As I sought to explain to the appellant such material would not have assisted in establishing legal error on the part of the Tribunal or the Federal Magistrate.
19 I have read the Tribunal's reasons and those of the Federal Magistrate. I can detect no legal error in the learned Magistrate's reasons.
20 The appeal should be dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding twenty (20) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice TRACEY .