Case: SZFQY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FMCA 395
Outcome: affirmed
present purposes, the Tribunal which last considered the delegate's decision again affirmed the decision not to grant the visa sought. An application seeking review of that decision was filed in the Federal Magistrates Court on 5 November 2008. On 16 April 2009 that Application was rejected: SZFQY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FMCA 395. The Appellant now appeals to this Court. The Notice of Appeal as filed on 5 May 2009 relevantly states: GROUNDS OF APPEAL: His honour committed an error of law in dismissing that the decision involved a jurisdictional error of law involving an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law to the facts of the case found by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the Migration Act or the regulations. The Tribunal breached its obligations under S.424A (1) of the Act. The Tribunal made a number of findings to reject my claims. The Tribunal did not discuss with me the Independent Information or give me an opportunity, to provide an explanation in relation to those findings. ... Alternatively, the Tribunal's obligations under s.424A(1)(b) encompass the giving of particulars as to the derivation of adverse evidence which might affect a consideration of whether the information is reliable, since those particulars inherently assist a proper understanding of the relevance of the adverse evidence to the Tribunal's review. These Grounds of Appeal were further supplemented by a written Outline of Submissions filed by the Appellant on 23 July 2009. Those written submissions state in part as follows (without alteration): The Tribunal did not explain in its decision that what kind of knowledge it was expecting from the applicant. The Tribunal also set a level for political activities for the applicant and the Tribunal did not inform the applicant which level of activities it was expecting and the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) does say any about what the Tribunal mentioned in its decision, so the applicant was not able to satisfy the Tribunal and the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error in this regard The submissions also refer to specific findings as made by the Tribunal and assert that there has been a denial of an opportunity to address those findings. The Appellant appeared before this Court on 5 August 2009 unrepresented, although he did have the benefit of an interpreter. At the outset of the hearing he appeared to read from a document and made oral submissions as to why his Appeal should be allowed. He was unable, however, to provide any assistance as to what was intended to be embraced within the oral submissions he was advancing. Clearly the document had been prepared by someone else. Such a course does little either to advance such merits as an appellant's case may have or to assist the Court. Although there is some uncertainty in the grounds expressed in the Notice of Appeal , as supplemented by the written submissions, it is considered that the Tribunal has not committed any jurisdictional error and, more importantly, that there is no appellable error in the reasons for decision of the Federal Magistrate. The " applicable law " to which the Appellant refers in his Grounds of Appeal is not further identified, nor is there any further clarification of the " power " to which reference is also there made. This contention was rejected by the Federal Magistrate: [2009] FMCA 395 at [11] . If this is the " applicable law " and the " power " to which the Appellant intended to refer in his Notice of Appeal , the Federal Magistrate was correct to reject the contention. The now Appellant was invited to attend a hearing to be held before the Refugee Review Tribunal on 6 June 2008. The Appellant, by his representative, indicated that he did in fact wish to attend and on 24 May 2008 his representative forwarded to the Tribunal a detailed " dossier ". An " amended statement " signed by the now Appellant was forwarded to the Tribunal on 3 June 2008 and on 4 June 2008 a " submission " was also forwarded. The hearing before the Tribunal then took place on 6 June 2008.