FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Applicant AAAD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 194 APPLICANT AAAD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL A 21 OF 2003 GYLES J 17 FEBRUARY 2004 CANBERRA IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY A 21 OF 2003 BETWEEN: APPLICANT AAAD APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: GYLES J DATE OF ORDER: 17 FEBRUARY 2004 WHERE MADE: CANBERRA THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondent. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY A 21 OF 2003 BETWEEN: APPLICANT AAAD APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: GYLES J DATE: 17 FEBRUARY 2004 PLACE: CANBERRA REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 In this matter the applicant applied for a protection visa which was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 6 August 2002. He applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal for review of that decision, and on 23 May 2003 attended an oral hearing, together with an adviser, a witness and an interpreter. On that occasion there was the opportunity for questions to be asked and argument to be advanced to the Tribunal member. 2 During the course of that hearing, so far as can be found from the Tribunal's account of the matter, various discrepancies or questions were raised where the Tribunal had doubt about the version of events offered by the applicant or where there was material which the Tribunal member regarded as contrary to what was being suggested. On 30 May 2003 the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision and that decision was handed down on 26 June 2003. 3 The applicant made application to this Court under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 seeking a writ of certiorari, a writ of mandamus and an injunction without any grounds being stated. I will not set out in full the accompanying affidavit, but the grounds which are there set out appear to be some sort of boiler-plate or template which have little or no relationship with this particular case, and which in any event are of such generality as to be unhelpful. 4 The usual court book has been prepared and I have received a very useful outline of submissions from the respondent's counsel which summarises the case, summarises the approach of the Tribunal, and refers to the principles upon which this Court must operate. It must be appreciated that the review which this Court can undertake of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal is only upon jurisdictional grounds. The Court has no role to review the decision-making process or reasoning of the Tribunal, or to substitute the Court's view for the Tribunal's view of the facts. 5 In the present case the reasons of the Tribunal make clear that it simply rejected the account given by the applicant in support of his claim to protection. What is more, the Tribunal member explained why that view was taken in some detail. That judgment as to whether the claims were genuine or not was very much a matter for the Tribunal itself, and absent any failure of natural justice or some other jurisdictional error this Court is not able to intervene and correct any errors it might see in the way in which the Tribunal determined the merits of the case. 6 It is not necessary for the purposes of this application to deal in any detailed way with the authorities. Whilst there is some debate as to the use which a Tribunal may make of demeanour, in my view there is no difficulty about that. Indeed it is necessary that a Tribunal make an assessment of the genuineness of persons presenting themselves to the Tribunal, and it would be quite unrealistic not to take account of demeanour. How it is used and how it is taken into account is generally speaking a matter for the fact-finding tribunal, and in my opinion the difficulties which are confronted in assessing a claim of this kind should be recognised by courts when reviewing the decisions of the administrative body concerned. 7 In any event in this case I am satisfied that no jurisdictional error has been identified. None is disclosed. The application is dismissed. There is an application for costs and there is no basis upon which that can be rejected. 8 The application is dismissed. The applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent. I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles. Associate: Dated: 8 March 2004 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: AF Backman Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 17 February 2004 Date of Judgment: 17 February 2004