MZZSH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

THE TRIBUNAL'S DECISION 7 On 10 December 2012 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision. The appellant was invited to appear before the Tribunal at a hearing and on 24 July 2013 he gave evidence and presented arguments to the Tribunal. However, on 8 August 2013 the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the appellant a protection visa. 8 In the Tribunal's statement of decision and reasons, it first set out the legal framework relevant to the application which is uncontentious in the appeal. The Tribunal assessed the appellant's claims and evidence, and expressed significant concerns regarding the appellant's credibility based on a number of inconsistencies in his evidence including: (1) when he first met Ms Kaur; (2) when he told his father about his relationship with Ms Kaur; and (3) whether he had ever been threatened or harmed as a result of his relationship with Ms Kaur. 9 Because of the view it took of the appellant's credibility the Tribunal was not satisfied that due to a disapproval of his relationship by either his family or Ms Kaur's family the appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution which satisfied the definition of "refugee" under the Refugee Convention. The Tribunal found that the appellant had no substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his being removed from Australia to India, there was a real risk that he would suffer significant harm as defined under s 36(2A) of the Act. 10 The Tribunal decided that the appellant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa set out in s 36(2) and affirmed the decision of the delegate.

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT'S DECISION 11 On 30 August 2013 the appellant filed an application for judicial review of the Tribunal decision on the sole ground that the "RRT Tribunal and department of immigration did not look my situation [sic]". 12 The appellant did not file written submissions in support of his application, but appeared at the hearing and made oral submissions. The learned primary judge noted that the essence of the appellant's claim for a protection visa was that he had: … a relationship with a woman of whom his family did not approve, and the likelihood that if he returned to India, her family would kill the applicant to save their pride. 13 His Honour summarised the Tribunal's decision, reproducing the Tribunal's credibility findings verbatim at [45]-[48] and concluded that: Given these findings, it is scarcely surprising that the Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the definition of a Refugee as defined in the Convention, nor was he at risk of significant harm as defined in s 36(2)(aa) of the [Act]. 14 The primary judge noted that a credibility finding is a finding of fact which is a function of the primary decision-maker, citing Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Ex Parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407 ("Ex Parte Durairajasingham") at [67] per McHugh J. His Honour held at [20]: …while of course minds might differ as to whether the Tribunal came to the correct decision, the fact is that the decision on its face shows that the applicant's claims were directly put to the Tribunal and considered by the Tribunal. In the circumstances the applicant propounded both in his Statement and in his, at times, inconsistent evidence given to the Tribunal, the fact that the Tribunal did not believe the applicant does not show any want of logicality or reasoning. There is no jurisdictional error shown in the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal member, clearly, properly understood the task to be undertaken and did not fall into jurisdictional error in so doing. 15 On 15 July 2014 the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the application for review.

THE APPEAL TO THIS COURT 16 The appeal to this Court is based on a single ground, namely that the Federal Circuit Court failed to find that the Tribunal's decision: was in breach of s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and therefore fall [sic] under jurisdictional error". The ground is not particularised and the appellant did not file written submissions in support of it. When I requested that the appellant set out the basis of the alleged breach of s 424A he was unable to do so and he said only that a friend had drawn the Notice of Appeal. 17 The appellant sought an adjournment at the hearing claiming that he needed to instruct a lawyer and be given more time to prepare his case. However, he provided no explanation for his failure to seek an adjournment prior to the hearing date, nor any explanation why he had not sought legal advice earlier given the period since the Federal Circuit Court judgment. Section 424A of the Act has no apparent relevance to the appellant's case and he did not put forward any cogent basis upon which one might reach a view that legal advice is likely to assist his claim. I refused the adjournment application.

CONSIDERATION 18 Section 424A of the Act requires the Tribunal to give the applicant clear particulars of any information that would be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review and requires the Tribunal to invite the applicant to comment on or respond to it. 19 There is no substance to this ground. The appellant did not point to any particular information that the Tribunal had considered but that was not disclosed to him. Nor does the decision reveal that the Tribunal considered any information that was not either provided by the appellant or provided to him prior to and during the hearing process. 20 Taking a view of the appeal broader than the only ground alleged, a review of the decision shows that the Tribunal found that the appellant's claims were not credible and it made findings of fact that were open on the material before it. As the learned primary judge said, findings on credibility are the function of the primary decision-maker par excellence: Ex Parte Durairajasingham at [67].

CONCLUSION 21 I can discern no appealable error in the reasons of the learned primary judge or jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision. The appeal is dismissed and the appellant must pay the first respondent's costs. I certify that the preceding twenty-one (21) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Murphy.