SZCIN v Minister For Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCAFC 65

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCIN v Minister For Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCAFC 65 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 422B, 427(1)(d) SZCIN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2005] FMCA 1827 cited Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601 cited Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SGLB (2004) 207 ALR 12 cited SZCIN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2 of 2006 HEEREY, CONTI & JACOBSON JJ 2 MAY 2006 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2 of 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZCIN

APPLELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HEEREY, CONTI & JACOBSON JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 2 MAY 2006

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2 OF 2006

BETWEEN: SZCIN

APPLELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HEEREY, CONTI & JACOBSON JJ

DATE: 2 MAY 2006

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant appeals from a decision of Pascoe CFM dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa. The circumstances of this case are fully set out in the Magistrate's decision, which is available on the internet: SZCIN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2005] FMCA 1827. 2 The notice of appeal does not identify any error in the learned Magistrate's decision. 3 The written argument filed on the appeal refers to the decision of the High Court in Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601. This ground was not argued before the learned Magistrate. Insofar as it alleges any breach of natural justice, s 422B of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) applies. In the absence of any demonstrated breach of the procedural requirements of the Act no ground of breach of procedural fairness is available. 4 The appellant claims that the Tribunal did not inquire into the veracity of the documents he submitted to the Australian High Commission in Dhaka. However, the Tribunal was not under any duty to inquire, either by reason of s 427(1)(d) or otherwise: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SGLB (2004) 207 ALR 12 at [43]. 5 In general the appellant's written argument seeks to raise questions going to the merits of his claim. It was not the function of the Magistrate to reconsider the merits of the appellant's claim for a protection visa, still less is it the function of this Court on appeal from the Magistrate. 6 The order of the Court is that the appeal is 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 Justices Heerey, Conti and Jacobson.