SZSXH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Ground Two 13 Before the FCCA, the appellant argued that the Tribunal had erred by failing to consider an item of documentary evidence, being the church support letter referred to in [8] above. I propose to construe ground two of the notice of appeal consistently with that argument below. 14 In my view, the FCCA correctly held that the Tribunal's omission to directly cite the church support letter in its findings and reasons had no jurisdictional consequence. 15 The support letter was identified by the appellant at the entry interview as a character reference. It was for the appellant to indicate the significance of the letter, if any, particularly in the context where he himself had effectively dismissed its significance at the entry interview. The appellant's comprehensive written submission to the Tribunal did not mention the letter. Given the letter's contents, that is not surprising. The letter was so highly generalised that it was not capable of corroborating the appellant's claims. 16 In my view, there is no evidence that the Tribunal overlooked the church letter, as distinct from regarding it as irrelevant. The Tribunal was under no obligation to refer in its statement, under s 430(1) of the Act to evidence that was not a reason for its decision and which was not evidence upon which its findings of fact were based. Accordingly, given the terms of that section, it cannot be inferred from the fact that the letter was not mentioned in the statement of reasons that it was not considered by the Tribunal: see, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Applicants S194 of 2002 [2003] FCAFC 273 at [21]-[23]; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323, especially the joint judgment at [68]-[69]. 17 Even if the Tribunal did overlook the letter, that does not demonstrate jurisdictional error, given the letter's insignificance. A failure to consider an item of evidence may demonstrate jurisdictional error where it is found, both, that the evidence was overlooked and that it was of some import when regard is had to its cogency and its significance to the decision-maker's reasoning: see Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT (2013) 212 FCR 99 at [112]. Neither matter is established in the instant case. The learned primary judge was correct in so finding, and, for that reason, ground two of the notice of appeal cannot be sustained.

Ground Three 18 This ground contains three limbs. As a preliminary matter, the function of this Court on appeal is to determine whether there was any error made in the decision of the FCCA, and not in the findings of the Tribunal: see, Sathiyanathan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 210 at [10]; SZAJB v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 782 at [4]. The appellant's third ground raises an argument that was not ventilated before the FCCA. 19 With respect to the complaint that the Tribunal did not adequately consider the appellant's claims under the Complementary Protection criteria, the Tribunal expressly considered whether the appellant was owed protection obligations pursuant to the complementary protection criteria, from about [30] of its Statement of Decision and Reasons. The appellant advanced no discrete separate or independent complementary protection claims (AB 327). The Tribunal gave consideration to the appellant's claims and its findings of fact, which remained pertinent to its assessment, pursuant to the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal concluded that there were no substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the appellant being removed from Australia to Sri Lanka, there was a real risk the appellant would suffer significant harm. No jurisdictional error is therefore disclosed. 20 With respect to the complaint that the Tribunal failed to consider the appellant's claims cumulatively, including claims concerning religious harm and activities in Sri Lanka supporting Tamil activities, I have already dealt with the matter of the absence of any religious claim being put to the Tribunal. The Tribunal expressly considered the appellant's claims concerning his Tamil ethnicity and claimed actual or imputed political opinion as supportive of the LTTE from about [23] of its Statement. The Tribunal concluded the appellant faced no real chance of serious harm for such reasons at [26] and [28] of its Statement, and therefore, no jurisdictional error is disclosed. 21 With respect to the third limb of this ground - that is, the complaint that the Tribunal failed to consider the appellant's claimed activity in Australia under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act - this contention bears no resemblance to the appellant's factual claims nor the Tribunal's findings. This is not a case in which the appellant claimed to have engaged in activity in Australia which the Tribunal disregarded in accordance with s 91R(3) of the Act, but which the Tribunal was nevertheless required to assess pursuant to the complementary protection criterion.

Ground Four 22 The Act does not require any particular form of questioning of an appellant by the Tribunal, provided it complies with its statutory obligations to invite the appellant to give evidence on the issues arising from the review. It was for the appellant to make out his case: Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510 at [187]. The Tribunal was not obliged to inquire further, and was not obliged to prompt and stimulate an elaboration of the appellant's claims: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SGLB (2004) 207 ALR 12 at [1], [42] and [43]; Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S154/2002 (2003) 201 ALR 437 at [54]; [85]-[86]. 23 Throughout the course of the review, the appellant had ample opportunity to advance a religious claim. The opportunity included at the Tribunal hearing where the appellant was represented by his migration agent by telephone (at [4] of the primary judge's reasons). The appellant advanced no such claim, despite a proper opportunity being afforded to him. The FCCA was correct to reject this ground for the reasons given. Ground 4 cannot be sustained. 24 This morning, the appellant has not advanced any further grounds upon which he proposed to rely, other than those set out in his notice of appeal. In the circumstances, and for the foregoing reasons, the appeal must be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding twenty-four (24) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Edmonds.