The appeal to this Court
8 The appellant appears in person assisted by an interpreter. He relies on the following grounds as set out in his notice of appeal:
(1) 'The [Tribunal] failed to carry out it's decision. They made a unfavour decision before a hearing on the letter on 10 May 05. Please see file no. N05/50842 and in the decision the "reason". Only one page. it is careless.'
(2) 'Due to my English problem. I lost the hearing in [the Tribunal] and I did not got a chance in the Court process. too.'
(3) 'The lawer of DIMA did not write my name correct in a letter.'
(4) 'I will be in danger if I go back to China.'
9 I questioned the appellant on the meaning of those grounds. He was unable to provide assistance or particulars other than to repeat that he did not receive the letter inviting him to attend a hearing.
10 To the extent that the first ground of appeal alleges that the Tribunal did not make a decision, it clearly did so. The appellant complained that the decision was only one page long but that is understandable considering the lack of information before the Tribunal. It was the lack of detail in the appellant's claims and his absence at the hearing which led to the Tribunal being unable to be satisfied as to his claims. That does not constitute jurisdictional error. The Tribunal complied with its obligations pursuant to ss 425 and 425A of the Act. The letter invited the appellant to attend a hearing giving notice of the day and time within the prescribed period outlined in reg 4.35D of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). The letter contained a statement to the effect of s 426A.
11 The first ground of appeal also seems to suggest that the Tribunal had already made an unfavourable decision when it sent the letter inviting the appellant to attend the hearing. If so, the ground appears to reflect a misunderstanding about the meaning of the statement required to be provided to the appellant by s 426A. To the extent that the ground appears to imply that the Tribunal exhibited bias against the appellant, no evidence has been provided to support such a claim or to enable the ground of appeal to be made out. Allegations of bias carry a heavy onus. The allegation must be distinctly made and clearly proved. There is no evidence here that could amount to any suggestion of prejudgment by the Tribunal or anything else to support an allegation of bias. The first ground of appeal raises no basis for jurisdictional error.
12 The second ground of appeal is also somewhat unclear. To the extent that it refers to the fact that the appellant did not attend the hearing, for the reasons I have given, there was no jurisdictional error in this regard. The appellant was given an opportunity to attend the hearing and by reason of s 441C of the Act is deemed to have received the invitation seven working days after the letter was sent. The appellant did not attend the hearing at the date, time and place specified. In those circumstances, the Tribunal was entitled to make its decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable the appellant to appear before it (s 426A(1) of the Act). To the extent that the ground of appeal relates to his difficulties with English, there was no obligation on the part of the Tribunal to ensure that the hearing invitation was provided in a language which the appellant could understand. The invitation issued by the Tribunal complied with the requirements of s 425A of the Act.
13 To the extent that the ground of appeal suggests that the appellant was not given a "chance" in the Federal Magistrates Court, the appellant appeared before Jarrett FM and made submissions at the hearing. There is no evidence to suggest that he was not given every opportunity before his Honour. No particulars of such a complaint are provided. To the extent that the appellant suggested before me that he had wished to file additional material in the Federal Magistrates Court that went to the merits of his claim for refugee status, as his Honour pointed out, that would not have assisted the appellant in the application before his Honour (at [10]). His Honour was determining whether there had been jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
14 As to the third ground of appeal, there are no particulars either of a letter in which it is said that the appellant's name was written incorrectly or as to the consequence of any such error. I could not see in the appeal book where that may have occurred, nor could the appellant identify such a letter. In any event, I can see no consequence of any such error and none is suggested by the appellant. He does not suggest that any such error was responsible for his failure to receive the letter of 10 May 2005 notifying him of the hearing date.
15 The fourth ground of appeal seeks merits review. That is not within the jurisdiction of the Court (NAHI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 10 at [10]).
16 None of the grounds in the notice of appeal have been made out. The appellant has not demonstrated any reason why the decision of Jarrett FM should be disturbed.