HZAAA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 1459 (16 December 2011)

Last Updated: 19 December 2011

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HZAAA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 1459

Citation:		HZAAA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 1459
Appeal from:		HZAAA v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2011] FMCA 567
Parties:		HZAAA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File number(s):		TAD 50 of 2011
Judge:		MARSHALL J
Date of judgment:		16 December 2011
Date of hearing:	24 November 2011
Place:	Melbourne
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	6
Counsel for the Appellant:	The Appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondents:	Mr D Wilson
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	TAD 50 of 2011

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	HZAAA Appellant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 DECEMBER 2011
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs.
   

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	TAD 50 of 2011

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	HZAAA Appellant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	16 DECEMBER 2011
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The appellant appeals from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court. The Court below dismissed the appellant’s application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) to refuse the appellant a protection visa.
2. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
   1. That the applicant has a case which needs the intervention of this honourable court. As the applicant has undergone a lot of harassments by the hands of the Sikh extremist, by reason of religion and political opinion. The applicant is an Hindu and living right in the heart of Punjab which is majority Sikh area. The applicant had lots of clashes with the Khalistan movement federation. The applicant was well known due to his political and social activities and the Khalistan student consisting of many different Sikh organisation turned against the applicant. That the applicant is a Hindu and is an informant to the Indian authorities.
      
   2. That although the applicant was a member of his own Hindu student federation. The applicant had his own group of student federation but the applicant was also affiliated with Hindu Sheve Sana party which had many clashes with the Khalistan movement groups. And since the applicant was very vocal and active, within his own party the applicant was harassed and was put to state of persecution by the majority of the Sikh student in his student times.
      
   3. That the applicant was given warnings by the Khalistan student federation that his name is on the hit list and he shall be done to death and during these times the applicant was constantly chased by the Khalistan student federation and the applicant used to hide and move around places in order to save his life. That the amount of danger of life which really means in the eyes of the law was not assessed according to the law hence amount to legal and jurisdictional error.
      
3. Although appeal ground 3 purports to raise a jurisdictional error, it is beyond doubt that all three grounds deal with the merits of the appellant’s application before the Tribunal. None of them demonstrate any appealable error in the judgment of the Court below or any jurisdictional error in the decision of the Tribunal. They all seek to reagitate matters of merit decided by the Tribunal.
4. The appellant is a citizen of India. He arrived in Australia as the holder of a student visa. About one month later he applied for a protection visa. He did not take up an invitation by the Department of the first respondent to attend an interview with it. A delegate of the Minister refused the application principally in light of the brief information provided and the lack of specific material to substantiate the claims made.
5. The appellant sought a merits review of the delegate’s decision before the Tribunal. He declined an opportunity to appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed his application on the scant material before it. The appellant then sought judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal before the Federal Magistrates Court. The only ground of review which raised a possible jurisdictional error was that the Tribunal failed to accord natural justice to the appellant.
6. The Federal Magistrates Court dealt with all grounds of review. It noted that grounds 1 and 3 involved dissatisfaction with the merits of the claim and the weight to be given to evidence. The Court observed that no basis was put to it upon which it could make out the appellant’s natural justice claims. The grounds of appeal do not cavil with the Court below’s assessment of the natural justice ground. As none of the grounds of appeal raise any arguable jurisdictional error by the Tribunal or, more significantly, an appealable error by the Federal Magistrates Court the appeal must be dismissed, with costs.
   

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.

Associate:

Dated: 16 December 2011