SZRGW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

. The [Federal Magistrate] failed to consider that the Tribunal acted in a manifestly unreasonable way when dealing with the applicants claim and ignoring the aspect of persecution and harm in terms of Sec.91R of the Act. The Tribunal failed to observe the obligation amounted to a breach of Statutory Obligation.

. The Federal Magistrate failed to consider that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make the said decision because its "reasonable satisfaction" was not arrived in accordance with the requirements of the Migration Act [errors in original]. 8 The appellant has not provided any particulars or any submissions directed to these grounds of appeal. When asked if he wished to say anything in respect of them, the appellant said that he had no legal knowledge and could not do so. Rather, he referred to the evidence that he had sought to provide to the Tribunal. 9 The appellant says that it was "not right" that his case did not fit within the Convention, and that he still fears persecution on the grounds of political opinion if he returns to Pakistan. He refers again to the documents that he had unsuccessfully sought to provide to the Tribunal, in particular to a newspaper article. As noted by the Federal Magistrate (at [16]), the Minister obtained a translation of that article following the Tribunal decision. That translation was before his Honour, who considered the article and dealt with it in his reasons. 10 His Honour's conclusion was that it did not add anything to the appellant's case, particularly in the light of the aspects of his claim already accepted by the Tribunal. Indeed, the Federal Magistrate found that the article was consistent with the Tribunal's conclusion that the appellant was a victim of criminal activity, not persecution for a Convention reason. His Honour said (at [36]): In short, whilst the Tribunal fell into error by declining to accept the article, it was an error within jurisdiction. The article, if accepted, could not have affected the outcome once translated and understood. 11 The appellant has not sought to demonstrate an error in his Honour's reasoning and none is apparent. 12 Turning to the two grounds in the notice of appeal, I note that identical grounds have been the subject of other decisions of this Court: SZROZ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2012] FCA 843; SZQRD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 874 and SZQMR v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2012] FCA 122. In each of these cases, the Court has observed that it is not apparent from the grounds themselves, in the absence of particulars, as to what they are addressed. 13 In SZQRD, Nicholas J said (at [34]) as to the first ground: 'It is not apparent what aspect of section 91R the appellants are referring to in this ground or what it is that the Tribunal is supposed to have ignored'. In regards to the second ground, His Honour said (at [35]) that: 'the notice of appeal fail[ed] to identify the requirements of the Act which the appellants had asserted that the Tribunal failed to comply with'. 14 Justice Collier in SZQMR described (at [23]) the second ground as 'un-particularised and vague and that it was difficult to know exactly what the appellant meant by it'. Her Honour added that '[t]o the extent that the appellant makes a bare and unsubstantiated assertion that the decision of the Tribunal failed to comply with the Migration Act, [their argument has]… no merit'. Although her Honour found that the first ground had been made out in SZQMR, this finding was based on the facts of that case, which are not relevant here. 15 The appellant has not provided any particulars or any submissions in respect of the grounds of appeal. The Tribunal set out the appellant's claims and stated that it was satisfied that he had provided a truthful account of his circumstances in Pakistan, including his account of attempted extortion, abduction and mistreatment and his fear of harm from "Molvi Hasmat Ullah Masood Commander" and his associates. 16 It noted that religious and political extremist groups in Pakistan are implicated in extortion and kidnappings to fund their activities. The Tribunal considered whether the appellant's political opinion or other Convention related reasons contributed to the harm that he suffered in Pakistan, but, as I have said, was not satisfied that his political views or any other Convention related reason was a contributing factor to the extortion or kidnapping. Rather, the Tribunal concluded that he had been targeted solely for monetary reasons and that the harm that he had suffered was criminal conduct unrelated to a Convention reason. Further, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the harassment suffered by the appellant amounted to persecution. 17 I see no basis for concluding that the Tribunal acted in a manifestly unreasonable way as asserted by the appellant. I see no error in the reasoning of the Federal Magistrate. 18 The only matter that could be said to found the first ground of appeal was the document before the Federal Magistrate. His Honour dealt with that document and no error is apparent. 19 There is no support for the second ground of appeal and I adopt the observations of Collier J in SZQMR in relation to it. The matters raised by the appellant otherwise are a complaint about the findings of fact made by the Tribunal and amount to an impermissible review of the merits of his case. The Tribunal explained the basis for its conclusion and the findings of fact were open to it on the material presented by the appellant. 20 It follows that the appeal should be dismissed. I certify that the preceding twenty (20) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Bennett.