consideration
8 The real difficulty facing the appellant is that the appellant declined a hearing before the Tribunal. It may have been that he was ill-advised in so acting, but the appellant must accept the consequences of that choice: see S58 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2004) 85 ALD 492 at [25]. As was pointed out in SZDXC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1306 at [16]:
The RRT made it pellucidly clear in its letter of 12 March 2004 that it was unable to make a decision in the appellant's favour on the basis of the information before it, and as the Full Court observed in NAVX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 287, when the appellant failed to accept the opportunity to elaborate on that information at the scheduled hearing, the inevitable consequence was the rejection of his application.
9 Without further hearing from the appellant, the Tribunal was not satisfied on the very limited material before it that the appellant's claimed political involvement with the Akali Dal Baadal in India or the false charges and attacks on his family that the appellant claimed to have suffered as a result of his political activities were true. These were factual conclusions that were open to the Tribunal. According to the decision in Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272 the Court cannot review the merits of the Tribunal's decision. Further, there is no error of law, let alone a jurisdictional error, in the Tribunal making a wrong finding of fact: see Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510 at 560, [137].
10 There was some confusion, apparently, with a reference made by the appellant in his amended application before the Federal Magistrate to 'drug lords' in Pakistan. These factual claims were not made by the appellant to the Tribunal. His Honour dealt with this matter as follows:
22. The applicant told the Court that he does not speak, read or write English, and that a friend had prepared the amended application for him. It appears that the person who prepared the material for the applicant may have been confused. One of the grounds for the application says, quote:
The Refugee Review Tribunal did not appreciate the facts and the circumstances of the case. It is a known fact that even the states are unable to stop the drug dealers. The applicant, with no backing, fought the war against the drugs in his country.
23. The amended application goes on at paragraph 2 to refer to, quote:
The applicant lost all his business, family, and was open to a great fear of his life being taken away by the drug lords in Pakistan.
24. The ground goes on to say, quote:
The applicant cannot be given the protection in Pakistan. If the applicant is sent back to Pakistan, in that case the applicant shall be done to death by the hands of the drug lords in Pakistan.
25. The amended application complains that the Tribunal did not make findings in relation to those claims.
26. As the applicant has always claimed to be a citizen of India who was seeking a protection visa on the basis of his political opinion and membership of the Akali Dahl party, it is quite clear that the reference to Pakistan and a struggle against the drug lords of that country has no relevance to the applicant's case at all. I asked the applicant about that, and he indicated that he had nothing to do with Pakistan.
11 Whilst this conclusion seems correct and would have disposed of the confusion, the appellant nevertheless before me submitted in his written submissions:
That the appellant wanted his friend that he should write that in the Khalistan movement or the related any movement there were Hindu Drug Lords who used to sell the arms and, other material to the people who wanted the independent state of Punjab, the selling of the arms was misinterpreted by my friend. What use to happen that the Hindu Drug Lords use to sell the drugs to many Sikhs drug dealers to sell them, and purchase the arms, this was one way or the other was a typing mistake, and the word of Pakistan came in, the drug was to be selled [sic] in Pakistani Punjab. This was not the mistake of the applicant rather it was misunderstood by the friend of the applicant.
12 I do not consider that this submission has any impact upon the decision of the Tribunal (which did not have to consider the claims concerning 'drug lords' in Pakistan as they were not made before it by the appellant) nor the Federal Magistrate (not being a matter relevant to the task he had to undertake in considering the decision of the Tribunal).
13 Finally, the Federal Magistrate took the view that he would not permit the appellant more time to prepare his case, and effectively refused an adjournment. In the circumstances of this case, I do not think the Federal Magistrate failed to exercise his discretion properly in this regard, or to deny the appellant natural justice. The appellant had ample opportunity to prepare and present his case.
14 Further, the appellant before me sought an adjournment in order to place some additional unspecified documents before me. However, in the absence of any information as to the nature of those documents or the reason for requiring that material, I will not grant the appellant any further time.