The Federal Magistrates Court
10 On 5 April 2007 the appellant filed an application in the Federal Magistrates Court seeking judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. On the morning of the hearing she appeared without representation although she had the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter. The appellant confirmed that she relied on the grounds identified by her in a further amended application filed on 13 June 2007. Those grounds were:
'1. I was not given an opportunity to explain my case. I could not manage to attend the hearing on time. By the time I got to the RRT office, I was told that the hearing was over; I could leave because the hearing was over. I therefore was not given an opportunity for a hearing.
2. The Tribunal failed to carry out its statutory duty. I was not notified the reason or part of the reasons for affirming the decision in accordance with s 424A of the Migration Act 1958.'
11 The grounds were interpreted for the appellant. The court informed the appellant that there was no evidence before the court to support her application in terms of her failure to attend the hearing. The court invited the appellant on at least three occasions to seek leave of the court to give such evidence orally on oath. The appellant repeatedly stated that she did not wish to give evidence on her behalf.
12 The Minister read an affidavit of a member of the registry staff of the Tribunal indicating that there was 'no show' by the appellant. There was nothing in the evidence of the Tribunal records before the court to suggest that the appellant attended the Tribunal on the day of the hearing, or that she contacted the Tribunal after the hearing to explain her absence. The Tribunal decision makes it clear that the appellant did not contact the Tribunal prior to the scheduled hearing to seek a postponement or explain her failure to attend.
13 The appellant declined to make any submission in support of the first ground of the further amended application and accordingly her Honour found that the first ground was not made out.
14 The appellant declined to make any submission in support of the second ground of the further amended application. As her Honour rightly observed, s 424A of the Act does not require the Tribunal to put its final decision to the appellant. Moreover, her Honour found that there was no evidence relied on by the Tribunal in affirming the decision under review that was not otherwise information provided by the appellant. Indeed, as her Honour observed, it was the inadequacy of the appellant's information that led the Tribunal not to be satisfied that the appellant met the criteria for being a refugee (SZEZI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1195 per Allsop J at [29], [30]; SZCIA v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 238.
15 Her Honour found that the conclusions of the Tribunal were open to it on the materials before it and for which it provided reasons. Section 65(1) of the Act mandates that if the Tribunal is not satisfied that an applicant meets the criteria required for a protection visa then a protection visa is to be refused.
16 Her Honour found that the Tribunal's decision was not affected by jurisdictional error and therefore was a privative clause decision. Accordingly, pursuant to s 474 of the Act, the court had no jurisdiction to interfere.