SZEBT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1384

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEBT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1384 SZEBT V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N1881 OF 2004 BENNETT J 14 SEPTEMBER 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1881 OF 2004

BETWEEN: SZEBT

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 14 SEPTEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed 2. The appellant pay the respondent's 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 1881 OF 2004

BETWEEN: SZEBT

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE: 14 SEPTEMBER 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China claiming fear of persecution on the basis of religion. The appellant maintains that he was a Falun Gong practitioner and had been interrogated by the police. 2 The appeal from the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') was heard by Federal Magistrate Nicholls. The appellant essentially relied on two grounds before his Honour. First, that the Tribunal was biased against him. Second, that the Tribunal did not give him a proper opportunity to explain his application to the Tribunal. No proper particulars were provided for either ground. Nicholls FM rejected both grounds. His Honour found that the appellant had not brought any evidence to show bias or even apprehension of bias and held that there was no basis in the Tribunal's decision supporting any such assertion. 3 His Honour also held that there was no evidence before him to show that the appellant was denied the opportunity to put forward any further material in support of his claim or any explanations. To the extent that the application before him generally raised a concern of a breach of the principles of procedural fairness, his Honour noted that section 422B of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act') operates to make Division 4 Part 7 of the Act an exhaustive statement of the requirements of natural justice in relation to the matters it deals with. His Honour considered there was nothing in the material put forward by the appellant or in any other material before him that demonstrated any failure to comply with the provisions of the Act in this regard, nor for that matter did his Honour find any breach of the common law rules of procedural fairness.