FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA MZXTK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1812 MZXTK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL VID 621 of 2008 JESSUP J 25 NOVEMBER 2008 MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 621 of 2008 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: MZXTK Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: JESSUP J DATE OF ORDER: 25 NOVEMBER 2008 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 621 of 2008 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: MZXTK Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: JESSUP J DATE: 25 NOVEMBER 2008 PLACE: MELBOURNE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court given on 16 July 2008 dismissing an application by the appellant to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), signed on 13 December 2007 and handed down on 7 January 2008. In that decision, the Tribunal affirmed an earlier decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister not to grant a Protection (Class XA) Visa to the appellant pursuant to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). The second respondent, the Tribunal, has filed a submitting appearance. 2 In his application for review in the Federal Magistrates Court the appellant relied upon 18 grounds, 17 of which, according to the reasons of the Federal Magistrate, were not particularised in his oral submissions. The Magistrate found that there was no substance either in them or in the single ground of which the appellant gave some brief particulars at that stage. 3 In this court the appellant has expressed his three grounds of appeal as follows: 1. I'm [sic] refugee I cannot return to India to face persecution. 2. The case was supposed to list and proper argument why I cannot return to my country should have given weight. 3. Federal Magistrate Riley was biase [sic] and I want the matter to be reexamine [sic] by the Federal Court. 4 The appellant filed no written outline of submissions as he had been required to do by directions given by a Registrar of the court on 29 August 2008. In his oral submissions before me today the appellant said nothing that went any distance towards supporting the grounds of appeal to which I have referred. His submissions today were brief in the extreme and amounted to no more than an assertion that he would be in danger if he returned to India and that the Tribunal had not given consideration to any of his claims. 5 The first proposition is concerned entirely with the merits of the matter which was before the Tribunal. This was not the concern of the Federal Magistrate and is not the concern of this court. 6 The second matter involves the proposition that the Tribunal entirely failed to consider his claims in relation to which the Federal Magistrate said the following in her Honour's reasons of 16 July 2008: The grounds fall under a number of groups. The first is whether the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant's claims. It seems to me that the Tribunal carefully and thoroughly considered all of the claims that the applicant made. 7 Nothing has been put to this court by the appellant which would give me any reason to doubt the correctness of her Honour's reasons in this regard. It follows that the appeal is entirely lacking in substance and must be dismissed. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jessup. Associate: Dated: 1 December 2008 Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms R Hamnet Solicitor for the First Respondent: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 25 November 2008 Date of Judgment: 25 November 2008