MZWVY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 541

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZWVY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 541 MZWVY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS VID 1624 OF 2005 SUNDBERG J 12 MAY 2006 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 1624 OF 2005

BETWEEN: MZWVY

FIRST APPELLANT

MZWVZ

SECOND APPELLANT

MZWWA

THIRD APPELLANT

MZWWB

FOURTH APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SUNDBERGJ

DATE OF ORDER: 12 MAY 2006

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellants pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal fixed in the amount of $2,000. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 1624 OF 2005

BETWEEN: MZWVY

FIRST APPELLANT

MZWVZ

SECOND APPELLANT

MZWWA

THIRD APPELLANT

MZWWB

FOURTH APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SUNDBERGJ

DATE: 12 MAY 2006

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a decision of McInnis FM made on 19 December 2005. Pursuant to s 25(1AA) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 the appeal is to be heard by a single judge. The application before the Federal Magistrate sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 7 January 2005. 2 The appellants arrived in Australia on 8 November 2003. The first appellant applied for a protection visa on 19 December 2003. (The first appellant's wife and children joined in his application at a later stage, but for convenience the first appellant will be referred to as "the appellant".) A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 28 April 2004. The decision of the delegate was the subject of an application for review by the Tribunal. 3 The essence of the claim before the Tribunal was an alleged fear of persecution by Hindu and Muslim groups in India because the appellant was involved in practising and preaching Christianity. The appellant chose not to appear at the hearing, instead providing a written submission that included a chronology of events concerning attacks on Christians and relevant media articles. The Tribunal, after considering the appellant's evidence as a whole, was not satisfied that he was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations. 4 On an application for review of the Tribunal's decision before the Federal Magistrates Court the appellant represented himself. He made various claims in relation to the Tribunal's findings of fact. The Magistrate dismissed the application on the basis that the findings of the Tribunal were made after the appellant had been given the opportunity to attend the hearing and provide further submissions. The Magistrate found that the Tribunal had not taken irrelevant considerations into account and had approached its task in an appropriate manner free of apprehended bias. The Magistrate concluded that the procedure followed by the Tribunal did not constitute a breach of natural justice or procedural fairness. 5 The appellant's Amended Notice of Appeal (the first notice) contains three grounds of appeal: