Case: Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30 ; (2002) 190 ALR 601
Outcome: considered
The notice of appeal raises ten grounds of appeal. These grounds are as follows: 1. The Federal Magistrate had failed to find error of law, jurisdictional error, procedural fairness and relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). 2. The Federal Magistrate had dismissed the case without considering the legal and factual errors in the Tribunal decision. 3. The Federal Magistrate made a legal, factual and jurisdictional error in not applying the principles laid down in Randhawa 52 FCR 437. 4. The Federal Magistrate failed to take into consideration that the Tribunal decision was unjust and made without taking into account the full gravity of the appellant's circumstances and consequences of the claim. 5. The Tribunal had ignored relevant material as to the appellant's Shi'a background which put his life at risk, relied in part on irrelevant material and made a finding which was erroneous or mistaken. 6. There had been a lack of procedural fairness in his case along the same line as Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30 ; (2002) 190 ALR 601. In particular, the appellant claimed that his case was identical to Muin [2002] HCA 30 ; 190 ALR 601, where the Tribunal had misled the applicant before it in that case to believe that the Tribunal had read some material. 7. The Federal Magistrate did not consider the appellant's application dismissed on the date of hearing the application, and the appellant was not legally represented at the hearing before the Federal Magistrate. 8. The Tribunal was affected by jurisdictional error in that the Tribunal did not take into account certain relevant considerations or "integers" central to the appellant's claim. 9. The Tribunal failed to carry out its review function and exercise its jurisdiction in that: &#8226; it did not consider the immense and intimidating pressure on the appellant by Sunnis because of his Shi'a background &#8226; it did not consider the appellant's claim that Sunnis would kill him if he returned to Pakistan. 10. The Tribunal had applied the wrong test, in particular: &#8226; by requiring independent evidence of facts before the Tribunal would accept a claim being made by the appellant the Tribunal was, in fact, placing high onus of proof on the appellant and failing to give the appellant the benefit of the doubt &#8226; the Tribunal left out individual elements of the appellant's claims and tested whether they individually amounted to persecution rather than looking at the claim as a whole to determine whether the claim amounted to persecution. 31 In Muin [2002] HCA 30 ; 190 ALR 601 the majority of the High Court held, inter alia , that where the Tribunal indicated to a claimant for refugee status that it had considered all material relating to his application, but in fact had not because the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs had not transferred all relevant material to the Tribunal, there was a failure in the Tribunal to accord procedural fairness to the claimant in relation to such material. 32 With respect to the appeal before me, it is not clear as to which material the appellant is referring in relying on principles articulated in Muin [2002] HCA 30 ; 190 ALR 601. In the circumstances, this ground of appeal is not sustainable. Seventh ground of appeal 33 This ground of appeal does not evince a jurisdictional error. Eighth ground appeal 34 In the absence of further particularisation, this ground of appeal cannot be substantiated. Ninth ground of appeal