Case: MZXFN v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural Affairs [2006] FMCA 1274
Outcome: affirmed
Federal Magistrate McInnis dismissed the amended application ( MZXFN v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural Affairs [2006] FMCA 1274). Although his Honour did not state expressly in his reasons whether that dismissal was pursuant to r 44.12(1)(a) or (c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), the parties have proceeded on the basis of a right of appeal from a final decision. On my reading of his Honour's decision, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed on that basis. His Honour found that the appellant had not been denied procedural fairness (at [32] [36]) and that s 422B of the Act precluded the application of any common law principles of procedural fairness (at [40]). His Honour observed, in relation to the newspaper articles (at [32]): ' In my view, a proper reading of the Tribunal's decision indicates that it did no more than consider the material and draw a conclusion that the material either did not support [the appellant's] claims or that the articles otherwise provide corroborative material for [the appellant] sufficient to encourage the Tribunal to find [the appellant] was a witness of credit. Having found difficulties with [the appellant's] credibility, the Tribunal was entitled to consider the material offered by [the appellant] as a means of corroboration, and to then reject those items without necessarily proceeding to make a specific and express finding that the newspaper articles were forgeries. ' His Honour held that in the absence of other corroborative evidence, it was open to the Tribunal to make the findings that it did on the documents given to the Tribunal by the appellant (at [34]). His Honour did not consider it to be surprising that the Tribunal did not place significant weight upon the medical reports (at [35]). 8 His Honour said that the Tribunal had simply proceeded to make an adverse credibility finding against the appellant. It considered the material provided by the appellant, which in part was sought to provide what might be described as corroboration but found that that material did not assist or support the appellant's claim (at [36]). His Honour noted that the Tribunal had not found that the newspaper articles or the medical reports could properly be described as forgeries or fraudulent. 9 The appellant appears in person assisted by an interpreter. He relies on the same grounds that were before the Federal Magistrate and submits that the Tribunal ' sort of ignored ' the medical reports and the newspaper articles. Further particulars are not given. 10 The Minister submits that the appeal must fail for two fundamental reasons. The first is that there has been no denial of procedural fairness and the second is that, even if there had been such a denial, s 422B of the Act applies. That section relevantly provides that Div 4 of Pt 7 of the Act is taken to be an exhaustive statement of the natural justice hearing rule in relation to the matters it deals with. 11 Section 424A(1) of the Act in Div 4 has no application, as the documents in question were given to the Tribunal by the appellant for the purposes of the review application (s 424A(3)(b)). Indeed, the appellant does not raise any ground of appeal in this regard.