SZLHB v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 705

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLHB v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 705

SZLHB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 402 of 2008

MARSHALL J

19 MAY 2008

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 402 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZLHB

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER: 19 MAY 2008

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, fixed in the sum of $1,200. 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 402 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZLHB

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MARSHALL J

DATE: 19 MAY 2008

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant is a citizen of Indonesia. He is of Chinese ethnicity. He claims to have a well founded fear of persecution if returned to Indonesia in the reasonably foreseeable future. 2 The appellant applied to the first respondent Minister for a protection visa in reliance upon the Refugees Convention. A delegate of the Minister rejected the application. The appellant sought a merits review of that decision before the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate. The appellant then sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision in the Federal Magistrates Court. The Federal Magistrate dismissed that application and the appellant now appeals from that judgment to this Court. 3 The issue for determination in the appeal is whether the Court below erred in considering that the decision of the Tribunal was not illogical and, if illogical, not subject to judicial review. 4 The appellant did not respond to the Tribunal's invitation to attend an oral hearing. It had the material the appellant had put before the delegate as the only material in support of his claim for refugee status. That material included claims that: · the appellant's business had been looted by locals in Jakarta; and · ethnic Chinese are targeted in Jakarta. 5 The Tribunal accepted the appellant to be an Indonesian national. It said there were a number of issues it would have liked to discuss with the appellant about his claims but was not able to do so. The Tribunal found that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims so it could not be satisfied that he had a well founded fear of persecution if returned to Indonesia. 6 There is nothing illogical about that decision. The appellant has not explained how it can be viewed as illogical, given the absence of detailed evidence before the Tribunal. Even if the decision was illogical that, of itself, does not render it liable to be judicially reviewed; see NACB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 235 at [29]. 7 The other ground of appeal relied upon by the appellant alleged that the Tribunal failed to consider his claim that he would be "prosecuted" if he returned to Indonesia. Assuming the appellant meant "persecuted", the Tribunal did consider that claim but found that it was not supported by sufficiently detailed evidence. 8 The appeal is dismissed, with costs. I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.