SZQIR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Federal Court of Australia|2012-02-23|Before: Ms J, Finkelstein JJ, Bromberg J

INTRODUCTION 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate (SZQIR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FMCA 918) in which the Federal Magistrate dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review. The Federal Magistrate reviewed a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent ("the Minister") not to grant the first appellant a Protection (Class XA) visa ("Protection visa"). 2 The task of the Federal Magistrates Court in dealing with the judicial review proceedings brought by the appellant was to determine whether the Tribunal's decision was affected by jurisdictional error: s 474 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Migration Act"); Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476. 3 The task of this Court in relation to the appeal brought by the appellant is to determine whether the judgment of the Federal Magistrate is affected by appealable error: SLMB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 129 at [11] (Branson, Finn and Finkelstein JJ). 4 For the reasons that follow, I am not satisfied that error on the part of the Federal Magistrate has been demonstrated and therefore I will dismiss the appeal.

THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATE'S DECISION 11 On 14 June 2011 the appellant lodged an application in the Federal Magistrates Court relying upon the following grounds: 1. I ran a trucking business. I was persecuted by Mr HE supported by his brother-in-law, a senior in the Local Justice 2. Department I feared to be killed, so fled to Australia. I appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence, but the 3. Tribunal failed to consider my claims and evidence. He made jurisdictional errors. 12 The Federal Magistrate held that the Tribunal had properly considered the appellant's claims and evidence regarding his fear of persecution. At [15] the Federal Magistrate found the appellant's purportedly separately numbered grounds of review actually represented a single complaint, namely that the Tribunal had failed to have regard to the appellant's claims and evidence and had consequently committed jurisdictional error. 13 The Federal Magistrate noted at [7], that the Tribunal had accepted the appellant's claims that he feared harm from Mr He and his associates. At [16]-[18] the Federal Magistrate held that the Tribunal's finding that the appellant's fear of harm was not "essentially and significantly for a Convention reason" did not contain jurisdictional error. Ultimately, the Federal Magistrate was satisfied that the Tribunal had properly considered the appellant's claims and evidence and therefore there was no jurisdictional error disclosed. On 25 November 2011 the Federal Magistrate made orders dismissing the application for review.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THIS COURT 14 On 6 December 2011 the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal in this Court which contained the following stated grounds of appeal: 1. I am a hardworking person with skill of truck driving. My hard-earned money was robbed by HE Yu Feng who had support from his brother-in-law, the chief of the legislative bureau. He hired the killer with money to take my life. I am an ordinary person. My family assets were robbed and my family was ruined. I have no choice but to leave my wife and son behind to seek asylum in Australia. But the Refugee Review Tribunal failed to take my claims and evidence into account and had bias against me, making jurisdictional error. 2. The Federal Magistrate Court dismissed my appeal on 25 November 2011. 15 Despite orders made on 6 December 2011 allowing the appellant to file and serve written submissions 10 clear working days before the hearing date (by 6 February 2012), none were filed or served. At the hearing on 20 February 2012 the appellant was self-represented and assisted by an interpreter. 16 The appellant contended that the Tribunal's decision was not fair but did not elaborate.

Consideration 17 The vast majority of the content of ground one of the grounds of appeal is not a ground of appeal but a statement of asserted facts. The only grounds that are apparent are: an allegation that the Tribunal failed to take into account the appellant's claims and evidence; and, an allegation of bias. The second ground cannot be considered a proper ground of appeal and requires no further consideration. 18 The appellant failed in his application to the Tribunal because no Convention nexus was found in his claim. The grounds of appeal fail to challenge the basis of the Tribunal's decision and are clearly misdirected. For completeness, I will deal with each of the grounds pressed.

Failure to Take into Account Claims and Evidence 19 The appellant has not particularised any claim or evidence which he says the Tribunal failed to take into account and it is not apparent that there was any such failure. The evidence given regarding the appellant's fear of harm was not only taken into account by the Tribunal, it was accepted. The critical question the Tribunal was obliged to consider was whether the appellant had a well founded fear of persecution based upon one or more of the Convention reasons. That is, whether the fear was based upon one or more of the reasons specified in the definition of a refugee contained in Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (together "the Convention"). It is essential that a Convention nexus be found with a Protection visa applicant's claim because such a nexus is necessary to trigger Australia's protection obligations under the Convention. I am satisfied that the Tribunal properly considered all of the appellant's claims, including those bearing upon whether or not the appellant has a well founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. 20 I am not satisfied that there was any error in the Federal Magistrates review of the Tribunal's decision. Therefore, the first ground must be dismissed.

Bias 21 To the extent that the allegation of bias constitutes a new ground of appeal it requires the leave of the Court. The relevant principles regarding the raising of new grounds of appeal were the subject of detailed consideration in SZKCQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 578 at [7]-[11] (Flick J). Leave should only be granted to raise new grounds on appeal where it is expedient in the interests of justice. For a ground to be argued and determined for the first time on appeal, it must at least be shown that the ground has a reasonable prospect of success. 22 An allegation of bias against a decision-maker raises a very serious issue. In order to make out a case of actual bias, the party making the allegation carries the heavy onus of establishing that before making the decision in question, the decision-maker's mind was already made up and the decision-maker was incapable of being persuaded otherwise: VFAB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 131 FCR 102 at [18] (Kenny J). To make out a case of apprehended bias, it must be established that a fair-minded lay observer would reasonably apprehend that the decision-maker might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the decision in question: VFAB at [25]. 23 The appellant has not pointed to any evidence or other basis to support his claim of bias. The transcript of the hearing before the Tribunal has not been tendered. I have, however, reviewed the decision of the Tribunal. There is nothing in the Tribunal's decision record, including the steps taken during the course of the review that would substantiate a claim of bias on the part of the Tribunal. The Tribunal outlined the appellant's claims in detail, considered each of them and dismissed them on a cogent basis as it was open for the Tribunal to do. There is nothing in the material before me that would suggest that a fair minded lay observer, properly informed as to the nature of the proceedings, the matters in issue and the conduct of the Tribunal, might reasonably apprehend that the Tribunal may not have brought an impartial mind in determining the application before it: Re Refugee Review Tribunal; ex parte H (2001) 179 ALR 425 at [27]-[32] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Gummow JJ). This ground has neither merit nor any prospect of success. It is not expedient in the interests of justice that leave be granted to raise it. 24 I am not satisfied that any appealable error has been demonstrated on the part of the Federal Magistrate.

DISPOSITION 25 For those reasons the appeal must be dismissed. The appellant should pay the Minister's costs of the appeal. I will make orders to that effect. I certify that the preceding twenty-five (25) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Bromberg

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (8 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (6)