FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Applicant S1693 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 1512 MIGRATION – judicial review – procedural fairness – protection visa – documents before delegate refusing protection visa not forwarded to Tribunal – documents relevant to country information – Tribunal decision on questions of credibility – no evidence of practical unfairness – no jurisdictional error in failure to transmit documents – whether failure to take into account relevant considerations – essentially raised as question of fact – application dismissed Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Muin and Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601 cited S487/2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1309 followed S487/2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 125 cited P38/2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 1077 cited APPLICANT S1693/2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL, MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS and COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA N1451 OF 2003 FRENCH J 23 NOVEMBER 2004 DARWIN (Heard in Perth) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY N1451 OF 2003 BETWEEN: APPLICANT S1693/2003 APPLICANT AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL FIRST RESPONDENT MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS SECOND RESPONDENT COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA THIRD RESPONDENT JUDGE: FRENCH J DATE OF ORDER: 23 NOVEMBER 2004 WHERE MADE: DARWIN (Heard in Perth) THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The applicant is to pay the respondents' costs of the application. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY N1451 OF 2003 BETWEEN: APPLICANT S1693/2003 APPLICANT AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL FIRST RESPONDENT MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS SECOND RESPONDENT COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA THIRD RESPONDENT JUDGE: FRENCH J DATE: 23 NOVEMBER 2004 PLACE: DARWIN (Heard in Perth) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Introduction 1 An Iranian national who applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) in 1995 for review of a decision of a delegate refusing a protection visa application, sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision in the Federal Court. That application failed. He subsequently applied to the High Court for the issue of constitutional writs on natural justice grounds which were not available under the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) as they stood when he applied in the Federal Court. The application to the High Court was remitted to this Court in May 2003. The applicant complains of a failure of procedural fairness on the basis that, contrary to advice he received from the Tribunal, some documents relevant to his case, and considered by the delegate, were not sent to the Tribunal as required by the Act. For the reasons that follow, I am not satisfied that there was any practical unfairness affecting the Tribunal's decision, nor that any of the ancillary grounds raised by the applicant are made out. The application will be dismissed with costs. Factual and Procedural Background 2 The applicant is a citizen of Iran. He was born in Iran in 1961. He came to Australia on a visitors visa on 11 June 1995. His journey to Australia was the first time he had travelled outside Iran. He had applied for a visa to migrate to Australia in 1990 but was unsuccessful. In July and August 1994 he had applied, under his brother's sponsorship visa, for a visitors visa to come to Australia. That application was also unsuccessful on the basis of a perceived risk that he would overstay. His brother, who lives in Western Australia, applied to the Immigration Review Tribunal (the IRT) for a review of the refusal and that review was successful. Accordingly the applicant was granted a visitors visa in April 1995. 3 On 24 July 1995, about six weeks after he arrived in Australia, the applicant lodged an application with the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for a protection visa. The claims he advanced in his application and in the course of an interview with a delegate of the Minister who had to decide the application were, in substance: 1. He had been in hiding for five years after leaving high school in 1982 in order to avoid compulsory military service. 2. In 1987 he was apprehended by Revolutionary Guards for wearing a short sleeved shirt and was forced to complete 27 months of military service. 3. In 1992 he was found reading a Mujaheddin newspaper which he had picked up in a park. He was given 40 lashes and detained for two days. 4. From 1992 his house was kept under observation by the Revolutionary Guards and he was unable to get a government job. 5. His fiance's parents told him that their daughter would marry someone else because of the trouble he was having. 6. If the applicant were to return to Iran he would be arrested and imprisoned. He had been warned by a 'Kommittee' member not to leave the country. If he returned he would be treated as a courier for the Mujaheddin or it would be thought he went overseas to contact them. 7. It took the applicant a year to get a passport which he obtained only because he knew someone to whom he could pay a bribe. 4 According to an affidavit sworn by the applicant's brother on 20 May 2004, he provided the delegate with documents including newspaper clippings and sheets of information which he thought were favourable to the application. He said in his affidavit: '5. To the best of my recollection, about 3 weeks after the Protection Visa application was lodged, I provided the Department with documents to show that a person whose case was similar to [S1693's] and who was returned to Iran disappeared after returning to Iran and his family never saw him again. I also provided documents showing what happened to Mujaheddin supporters on their return to Iran and that they are labeled (sic) as anti-Islamic. These documents were in the form of newspaper clippings and sheets of information. For example, the newspaper clippings included clippings from the official Mujaheddin newspaper, The Mujahed (that I had obtained from friends in Sydney) and also other clippings handed to me by members of the Iranian community in Perth. I also handed in sheets of information I gathered from the Iranian community. 6. Whilst I cannot remember precisely what appeared in the clippings and information sheets, I do recall that I was of the opinion that such information was favourable to [S1693's] application for a protection visa in showing he had a real chance of being persecuted if he returned to Iran.' 5 The application for a protection visa was refused by the delegate of the Minister on or about 31 October 1995. The decision record indicated that the following documents were before the delegate at the time that he made his decision: '* The contents of Departmental file number A 95/0760 (folios 1-38), Tehran file 95/464. * Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DAFT) cables TR604 10 November 1994 and CR4505445 of 31 October 1994. * Information and Research Branch, Immigration and Refugee Board, Ottawa. Information Request Nos. IRN16371.E of 23/2/94 and IRN 17391.E of 16/5/94. * UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status. * Amnesty International Report 1995. * United States State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (1994) * JC Hathaway's The Law of Refugee Status' 6 Following the refusal of his application by the delegate the applicant applied to the Tribunal on 23 November 1995 for review of the delegate's decision. On or about 24 November 1995, the Tribunal sent him a letter acknowledging receipt of his application. It said, inter alia: 'The Tribunal has requested the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to forward a copy of its documents about your case to the Tribunal. … You should NOT send any documents or written arguments which you have already given to the Tribunal or the Department.' On the same date the Tribunal sent a letter to the Secretary of the Department giving notice of the application for review and requesting that the Secretary forward the documentation required under s 418 of the Act and any written arguments to the office of the Tribunal within ten days. 7 On 24 April 1996, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that it was ready to consider his case. It said: 'You should now send any documents or written arguments you wish the Tribunal to consider. You should NOT send any documents or written arguments which you have already given to the Tribunal or the Department…' And further: 'Whether or not you send any further written material, the Tribunal will consider your application on the basis of the documents in its possession. The Tribunal will then either grant your application or invite you to attend a hearing to deal further with your application.' At this time the Tribunal had before it the original application for review. It also had a letter of support for the applicant from the Iranian Cultural Society of Western Australia Inc and from the Chairperson of the Andishe Iranian Cultural Centre. 8 On 9 May 1996, the Tribunal again wrote to the applicant stating, inter alia: 'The Tribunal is now considering the documents in its possession relating to your case. It will also consider any further materials you wish to submit in accordance with its letter to you dated 24 April 1996. If after considering all the relevant materials and (sic) it is still unable to make a favourable decision on your case, you are entitled to attend a hearing of the Tribunal to give oral evidence….' The Tribunal specified 11 June 1996 as the hearing date. 9 The Tribunal held an oral hearing on 11 June 1996. On 21 June 1996, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate to refuse a protection visa. In the course of its reasons for decision the Tribunal referred to the following country information: (a) Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Cable TR31488 of 12 October 1992 (RRT Reasons at 11); (b) Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Cable TR31114 of 26 August 1992 (RRT Reasons at 11); (c) Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Country Profile: Iran March 1996 (RRT Reasons at 11); (d) Immigration and Refugee Board, Ottawa Response to Information Request No IRN17391.E of 16 May 1994 (RRT Reasons at 11); (e) View of Amnesty International given on 29 April 1993, 25 July 1994 and 26 February 1996 (RRT Reasons at 11); (f) Letter from Mr Mahmoud Alinejad, Iranian Community Worker The document referred to in par (d) above, being the document from the Immigration and Refugee Review Board, Ottawa, was one of the items of country information set out in the delegate's decision. 10 The applicant then applied to the Federal Court for review of the Tribunal's decision. That application was lodged on 19 July 1996. The grounds of the application largely concerned the merits of the Tribunal decision. The application was dismissed by Carr J on 23 April 1997. Carr J treated the application as raising a contention that the Tribunal's decision involved an error of law within the meaning of that expression in the former s 476(1)(e) of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was based essentially upon its disbelief of the applicant's major claims. It turned very much on credibility. The Tribunal expressly found that the applicant did not have a real chance of persecution in Iran for any Convention reason. His Honour did not consider that the applicant had made good his complaint that the Tribunal failed to apply the real chance of persecution test. Nor was his Honour able to identify any error involving an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law or an incorrect application of the law to the facts as found by the Tribunal. He was concerned by a reference in the Tribunal's reasons which might have been taken as suggesting that the applicant's evidence would not be accepted without some independent corroboration. However upon a consideration of the Tribunal's reasons as a whole, his Honour saw the reference by the Tribunal to an absence of 'independent evidence' as an additional, but not essential, reason to justify the decision it had already reached to disbelieve the applicant. The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs. 11 In 1999, representative proceedings were commenced in the High Court of Australia in the matters of Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal and Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal. Those proceedings related, inter alia, to alleged failures of procedural fairness by reason of the omission of the Secretary of the Department to forward to the Tribunal materials, comprising country information, which had been before the delegate when making protection visa decisions. That failure, coupled with the applicants' erroneous belief that all relevant documents had been sent to the Tribunal and the fact that, had they known the true position they would have taken corrective steps, was said to constitute a breach of procedural fairness. 12 The present applicant was joined in those proceedings as a member of the class represented by Mrs Lie. The High Court gave judgment on the Muin and Lie applications on 8 August 2002 – Muin and Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601. Those applications succeeded on the procedural fairness grounds. 13 On 25 November 2002, Gaudron J granted leave to the persons named in the Schedule to the statement of claim in the Lie matter to file applications for orders nisi. Her Honour also made an order prospectively remitting all such applications instanter to the Federal Court. The present applicant, who was named in the Schedule, filed such an application on 29 May 2003 which was then remitted to the New South Wales Registry of the Federal Court. On 2 March 2004, the application was transferred, by consent, to the Western Australian Registry of the Court. 14 The application before the High Court was for an order nisi for the issue of constitutional writs. 15 Directions were given prior to the hearing in this matter for the filing of Contentions of Fact and Law by both applicant and respondents and this was done. The applicant was then legally represented but by the time of the hearing his solicitor had ceased to act. The applicant relied at the hearing upon the affidavits and written contentions filed by his former solicitor. The Grounds of the Application 16 The grounds of the application as appear from the Contentions filed on behalf of the applicant are as follows: 'Ground 1 35. The RRT committed jurisdictional error by failing to accord to the Applicant procedural fairness or natural justice: Particulars (a) The RRT represented to the Applicant by its letter of 24 November 1995 that the RRT had requested copies of the Department's documents about the Applicant's case to be forwarded to the RRT and that the Applicant should not send any documents or written documents that he had already provided to the Department. (b) The RRT represented to the Applicant by its letter of 9 May 1996 that the RRT was considering all the documents in relation to the Applicant's case, which would have included documents the Country Information before the Department and the documents by [the applicant's brother] to the Department. (c) The Applicant was misled by the RRT into thinking that the Department had sent to the RRT, and the RRT had looked at, all the documents referred to in the Delegate's Decision and the documents provided to the Department by [the applicant's brother], which documents were relevant to the Applicant's claim. (d) The RRT had in fact only looked at one of the items of country information referred to in the Delegate's Decision, namely, Information and Research Branch, Immigration and Refugee Board, Ottawa, Information Request No IRN 17391.E of 16 May 1994. (e) The Applicant, by reason of having been so misled, did not consider it necessary to bring to the RRT's attention the documents that the RRT had not been sent and had not looked at, and did not take steps to bring them to the RRT's attention. Ground 2 36. The RRT committed jurisdictional error in failing to accord to the Applicant procedural fairness or natural justice: Particulars (a) The Applicant repeats particulars in subparagraphs 35(a), (b), (c) and (e). (b) The Applicant, through [the applicant's brother], would have presented oral submissions differently. Ground 3 37. The RRT committed jurisdictional error by failing to accord to the Applicant procedural fairness or natural justice: Particulars (a) The RRT took into account material relating to [the applicant's brother's] application to the IRT in respect of an appeal against a refusal of the Applicant's prior visitor visa application. (b) The (sic) did not give the Applicant notice that it intended to take that material into account and therefore did not give the Applicant an opportunity to comment on that material. (c) The RRT took an adverse view of the Applicant on the basis of that material in concluding that the Applicant had shown himself ready to deceive the Australian Immigration authorities and the IRT and that this therefore raised a certain scepticism about the Applicant's credibility in general. Ground 4 38. The RRT committed jurisdictional error or acted in excess of jurisdiction: Particulars (a) The RRT was required by s 424 of the Migration Act to take into account all relevant considerations. (b) [The applicant's brother] gave oral evidence during the RRT hearing that Iranian authorities would know that the Applicant had applied for refugee status in Australia. (c) Dr Ravazi gave oral evidence during the RRT hearing that laws were passed in Iran penalising Iranians who criticised the Iranian Government to foreigners and that this would apply to people who had applied for refugee status overseas. (d) In ignorance of the aforesaid evidence, the RRT concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the Iranian authorities could be aware of the Applicant's application for refugee status and accordingly there was no real chance that the Applicant could be persecuted for this reason. Ground 5 39. The RRT committed jurisdictional error by carrying out its review otherwise than in the way required by s 424(1) of the Act, in that it did so without having all the documents that the Delegate had, the Secretary of the Department having failed, contrary to s 418(3) of the Act, to give to the Tribunal all the documents referred to the Delegate's Decision and the further documents provided by[the applicant's brother] to the Department.' (sic) The Facts 17 The affidavits filed on behalf of the applicant commenced with the affidavit of his solicitor in the High Court proceedings, Mr Joel, who exhibited the delegate's decision record and the reasons for decision of the Tribunal. That affidavit did not otherwise deal with matters relevant to the question of procedural fairness raised in the contentions. Two affidavits were filed in support of the substantive application in this Court. One was sworn by the applicant on 24 May 2004 and the other by his brother on 20 May 2004. 18 The affidavit sworn by the applicant's brother referred to the procedural history and to news clippings and information sheets which he said he had provided to the Department '… to show that a person whose case was similar to [the applicant's] and who was returned to Iran disappeared after returning to Iran and his family never saw him again'. Other documents provided were said to show '… what happened to Mujaheddin supporters on their return to Iran and that they are labeled (sic) as anti-Islamic'. Although he could not remember precisely what appeared in the clippings and information sheets, the applicant's brother was of the opinion that the information was favourable to the application for a protection visa as demonstrating a real chance of persecution if the applicant were returned to Iran. 19 The applicant's brother had assisted the applicant in all aspects of the preparation and lodgment of the application for review in the Tribunal. He read the letters of 24 November 1995 and 9 May 1996 from the Tribunal. He said of the letter of 24 November 1995: 'I understood the letter to mean that all the documents that I had submitted for [the applicant] and that were considered by the Department were going to be given to the Tribunal and that the Tribunal would look at these documents once they were received. I also understood that, as I was assisting [the applicant] with all aspects of his case, I should not send any documents to the Tribunal that I had previously provided to the Department.' 20 The applicant's brother referred to additional material which he had presented to the Tribunal at the hearing comprising newspaper clippings, sheets of information and letters which he had gathered. He said that he read the decision of the Tribunal and that it did not refer to any of the documents which he had provided. Had he known that the Tribunal did not have, or did not look at, all the documents he had provided to the Department, he would have submitted those documents to the Tribunal and brought them to the Tribunal's attention. 21 The applicant's brother did not say in his affidavit that the materials listed by the delegate in his decision record included any of those provided by him. On that question, I am satisfied that the materials listed by the delegate did not include any newspaper clippings or information sheets or letters of the kind generically described by the brother. Nor is there any suggestion in the affidavit by the brother that he formed any view, one way or the other, about the transmission to the Tribunal of the materials listed in the delegate's decision record. 22 The applicant's own affidavit takes the matter no further. He relied upon his brother to make representations to the Department and to the Tribunal because of his limited grasp of the English language and his lack of familiarity with the Australian legal system. 23 The applicant's brother was not cross-examined on his affidavit. Counsel for the Minister said that the decision not to cross-examine him did not involve any acceptance of the contentions in the affidavit. It was really a matter of just looking at the documents. A solicitor in the office of the Australian Government Solicitor swore an affidavit saying that she had checked the file of the Department and the Tribunal and had been unable to find any documents that fitted the description given by the applicant's brother. The departmental search had also been unable to find such documents. 24 I have no reason to disbelieve the brother's word when he says that he provided some newspaper clippings and like material to the Tribunal. He was assisting the applicant. There was no reason for him to lie on this point. The risk of detection of a lie would have appeared high to the ordinary person. He is not likely to have been mistaken although it is always possible. It appears from an exchange between the Tribunal member and the applicant at the hearing and also between the Tribunal and the applicant's witness, that the Tribunal would not receive newspaper material in a foreign language unless it was translated. In my opinion it is more likely than not that the applicant's brother did send some newspapers and other materials to the Tribunal and that at least the newspaper material, not being translated, was not considered. Beyond the very general description of the material as favourable to the applicant and indicative of what had occurred to Mujaheddin supporters who were returned to Iran, there was no detailed description of its content. 25 At the close of the Tribunal hearing the applicant was given a further week to submit additional information or evidence. He was also told that if any of the information were not in the English language it would have to be accompanied by a translation by an accredited translator. 26 An affidavit by Janine Murfet, the Director of the Protection Division Support Section of the Department, referred to country information available both to the Department and to the Tribunal. All of the documents except the Ottawa Refugee Board Report was available to the Tribunal through departmental resources at the time the Tribunal's decision was made and the Tribunal expressly referred to the Ottawa Refugee Board Report in its reasons. All of the documents related to country specific information. 27 There was no positive evidence to establish that the Tribunal did not receive the documents referred to in the delegate's decision record. At the hearing on 11 June 1996, the Tribunal member said that he had '… read all the documents on your files including all the documents you have sent to the Immigration Department and to the Tribunal'. On the other hand, the Tribunal member was undoubtedly referring to what had been forwarded to the Tribunal. His comment did not establish whether the documents referred to in the delegate's decision had been so forwarded. The absence of any positive evidence that the relevant documents had been sent by the Secretary to the Tribunal leads me to believe that it is more probable than not that they were not included in the departmental file. It would have been an easy matter to state, by reference to the departmental file, that the documents had been forwarded. In my opinion, the most likely inference is that they were not. It is not enough to say that the onus rests upon the applicant. This was a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of the Department and the Secretary and the Secretary's officers. Having regard to what happened in other cases, including Muin and Lie, it would be unreal to suppose, absent explanation, that anything different happened in this case. 28 That is not the end of the matter however. It is a long way from establishing procedural unfairness. It is necessary next to consider the Tribunal's reasons for decision and then, against that background, the various grounds of application. The Tribunal's Reasons for Decision 29 It is not necessary to set out the Tribunal's reasons in detail. Importantly it decided the case on the basis of the applicant's credibility. In so doing it referred, inter alia, to the following considerations and inferences: 1. The applicant's readiness to deceive Australian immigration authorities and the IRT in relation to his reasons for travelling to Australia. 2. Despite claiming that he was in hiding from 1982 to 1987 other information supplied by the applicant showed that he was working for the same employer, namely his cousin's accountancy firm, from 1982 until he left Iran and that he also lived at the same address. 3. If as the applicant claimed, he had a pro-Mujaheddin profile, it was impossible to see how he could have remained free from official detection given the long period of time he worked and lived at the same address. 4. The applicant told the delegate that his cousin's firm for which he had worked had closed down shortly prior to his departure for Australia so that he would face unemployment if he returned to Iran. A similar claim was made to the Tribunal where it was said that the business had been closed down two weeks before he had come to Australia. Previously the applicant had claimed to the IRT that he was in stable ongoing employment. The Tribunal found the timing of the alleged closure of his cousin's business to be implausible. 5. Given the applicant's claim that his house was watched and that he was often followed when he left the house, the Tribunal was unable to see how it was possible for him to leave the country undetected. 6. There was no explanation given for the continuation of surveillance of the applicant over the period which he claimed. 7. Although it was not impossible that the applicant could have departed Iran using bribery to facilitate that process, his ability to depart Iran did count against him to a very significant extent. 8. It was difficult to see how a person, wanted by the authorities as the applicant claimed to be, could have obtained a certificate of school completion issued in April 1995. 30 The Tribunal had regard to the proceedings before the IRT and in particular evidence given by the applicant's brother in that tribunal. His brother had asserted that their mother who had been advised that she would be eligible to migrate to Australia in a preferential family category had chosen to remain in Iran. The applicant's brother had also told the IRT that 'two of his brothers living in Australia now wish to return to Iran because they had been unable to find employment in the areas for which they had qualifications'. The Tribunal was unable to accept that these statements were consistent with the applicant's claim that he was a Mujaheddin supporter wanted by the authorities. It was part of his case that his mother had been seriously harassed and put at risk because of his Mujaheddin connection. 31 In the end the Tribunal did not believe the applicant's claims although it was prepared to accept that he was punished in 1992 for being found in receipt of Mujaheddin literature. 32 The Tribunal also considered a sur place claim advanced by the applicant. It could find no evidence to suggest that the Iranian government would be aware of his application. 33 Against this background the grounds of the application can now be considered. In so doing it is necessary to bear in mind that to attract the application of the constitutional writs sought, it is necessary to show jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal. Procedural unfairness, which lies at the centre of the applicant's case, can constitute such error. Ground 1 – The Failure to Transmit Documents before the Tribunal 34 Having regard to the findings of fact made by the Tribunal any failure to transmit the documents referred to in the delegate's decision record would have made no difference to the outcome which depended entirely upon the Tribunal's assessment of the applicant's credibility. There is nothing to suggest any basis upon which the applicant's case could have been salvaged by any country information before the delegate, even on the assumption that none of it was before the Tribunal. This is true also of the documents said to have been sent to the delegate by the applicant's brother. The most that can be said of them is that they were of a general character relating to the treatment given to known or suspected Mujaheddin sympathisers on their return to Iran. They were at least in part untranslated. Procedural fairness did not require the Tribunal to translate them. 35 In relation to the departmental documents there was no evidence that the applicant or his brother were misled or would have acted differently in relation to the country information in the delegate's decision record if they believed it had not been sent on to the Tribunal. There is evidence that the Tribunal had access to all the relevant documents. It referred to a number of country information documents including the Ottawa Refugee Board document referred to the delegate's record. It also mentioned Amnesty International reports of 1993, 1994 and 1996. In my opinion no procedural unfairness was made out under this ground. Ground 2 36 This ground fails for the same reasons as ground 1. Ground 3 – Taking into Account Material Before the Immigration Review Tribunal 37 The Tribunal referred in its reasons for decision to matters that had been put to the Immigration Review Tribunal in 1995 in support of the applicant's application for a visitors visa. One of those matters was the delegate's reference to the evidence of the applicant's employment record tendered to the IRT and the certificate of school completion put before that tribunal. The Tribunal questioned the applicant's brother at the hearing about the evidence he had given to the IRT in relation to their mother's choice to remain in Iran and the choice of two of the applicant's brothers to do likewise. 38 These matters were fairly raised particularly with the applicant's brother who was assisting the applicant with his application. There was additional time for further submissions to be provided at the close of the Tribunal hearing. There was, in my opinion, no unfairness in the way that the applicant was dealt with in respect of the materials put before the IRT. Ground 4 – Sur Place Claim – Failure to take into Account Relevant Considerations 39 This ground raised material which, according to counsel for the respondent, could have been raised as a ground of judicial review before Carr J, if it is in truth, as it appears to be, a ground asserting failure to take into account a relevant consideration. I agree that there is no proper basis upon which a ground of review which could have been raised before Carr J should now be raised in these proceedings which were brought in the High Court on the basis that they sought review on grounds not available in the Federal Court under the old Part VIII of the Act. 40 In any event, this ground essentially complains of factual error. It will not support a finding of jurisdictional error, which would in turn support a claim for the issue of a constitutional writ. Ground 5 – Failure of Secretary to Transmit Documents 41 It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the failure of the Secretary to transmit the country information documents to the Tribunal was a contravention of s 418(3) of the Act and s 424 and constituted a jurisdictional error. There is no support in Muin v RRT for the proposition that a failure to comply with s 418(3) could amount to jurisdictional error – ([21] Gleeson CJ, [45] – [48] and [56] Gaudron J, [182] Gummow J and [326] Callinan J). In S487/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1309, Sackville J held the Secretary's compliance with s 418(3) was not a pre-condition for the exercise of the Tribunal's review function. His Honour also held there was no obligation on the Tribunal to consider the documents described in s 418(3) as part of the review process. An appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Full Court in S487/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 125. I applied his Honour's approach in P38/2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 1077. 42 In any event, even if it were the case that a failure to comply with s 418(3) could amount to such an error, I consider, in the absence of any practical consequences to the outcome of the Tribunal's decision, that relief should be refused on that discretionary basis. Conclusion 43 For the preceding reasons, none of the grounds is made out and the application will be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding forty-three (43) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice French. Associate: Dated: 23 November 2004 The Applicant appeared on his own behalf. Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr MT Ritter Solicitor for the Australian Government Solicitor First Respondent: Date of Hearing: 6 October 2004 Date of Judgment: 23 November 2004