SZJNZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Grounds of appeal 7 The Notice of Appeal that was filed with this Court on 30 July 2007 states the grounds of appeal as follows: 1. The Tribunal had bias against me and could not consider my application based on evidence and materials. I believe that the decision was induced by actual bias of the officer. 2. The Tribunal referred to wrong independent information for the consideration of my application. The decision was based on assumption of the officer. 3. The Tribunal failed to provide a rational and logical foundation to refuse my application. 8 The first ground of appeal alleges actual bias. An allegation of actual bias self-evidently is a "grave matter different in kind from finding of mere error or even wrong-headedness, whether in law, logic or approach": see Sun v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 151 ALR 505 at 555 per Burchett J. A party who makes such an allegation "carries a heavy onus": see SCAA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 668 at [36] per von Doussa J. A similar contention was raised before the Federal Magistrate. He rejected the ground. It is not considered upon a reading of the Tribunal's decision that the "heavy onus" has been discharged, nor that there is a basis for contending that the Tribunal approached the claim with anything other than an open mind. 9 The second ground, had the matter proceeded to hearing, would also in all likelihood have been dismissed. This ground does not identify the "wrong independent information" to which reference is made. A reading of the decision of the Tribunal does not disclose any self-evident "information" which was erroneous or not relevant to the Tribunal's decision. 10 The third ground alleges that the Tribunal failed "to provide a rational and logical foundation" for refusing the application. In NACB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) FCAFC 235, Tamberlin, Emmett and Weinberg JJ stated at [30] that "want of logic does not of itself suffice to constitute error of law, still less error of law which is jurisdictional." See also SZGCO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) FCA 637 at [21]. 11 In any event, a reading of the decision of the Tribunal does not display any lack of logic or rationality. The reasons for the decision of the Tribunal disclose an analysis of the law and a detailed account of the claims being advanced and the evidence adduced. There is thereafter set forth in the reasons of the decision of the Tribunal its "findings and reasons". No error is apparent, let alone any lack of logic or rationality. 12 Again, had the matter proceeded to hearing the third ground of appeal would also in all likelihood have been dismissed.

Orders 13 The Court orders that: 1. The appeal be dismissed pursuant to Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth), s 25(2B)(bb)(ii). 2. The Appellant to pay the First Respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal. I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Flick.

Associate: Dated: 16 November 2007 The Appellant: Self represented

Solicitor for the K Hooper (DLA Phillips Fox) First Respondent