FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZOQG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 492 Citation: SZOQG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 492 Appeal from: SZOGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FMCA 115 Parties: SZOQG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL File number: NSD 282 of 2011 Judge: NICHOLAS J Date of judgment: 12 May 2011 Cases cited: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 Date of hearing: 12 May 2011 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No catchwords Number of paragraphs: 12 Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms B Rayment of Sparke Helmore IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 282 of 2011 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZOQG Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: NICHOLAS J DATE OF ORDER: 12 May 2011 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs. 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 Federal Law Search on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 282 of 2011 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZOQG Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: NICHOLAS J DATE: 12 May 2011 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Revised from Transcript) 1 The appellant is a citizen of China who arrived in Australia on 13 February 2010. The appellant claims to fear persecution from the authorities in the People's Republic of China because he is a practitioner of Falun Gong. 2 On 2 March 2010 the appellant applied for a protection visa which was refused by a delegate of the first respondent on 31 May 2010. The appellant then applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) for a review of that decision. The decision of the delegate was affirmed by the Tribunal on 23 August 2010. 3 The Tribunal found that the appellant was "a person who completely lacked credibility". It found that the appellant had been untruthful in his evidence. These conclusions were based upon the Tribunal's assessment of the appellant's evidence to the Tribunal which it was satisfied involved significant inconsistencies and evasiveness. The Tribunal's reasons contain a detailed statement identifying each of the matters which lead it to make its credibility findings. 4 In the result the Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant was a person to whom Australia had protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol and that he did not satisfy the criteria set out in s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 for a protection visa. 5 An application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision (the review proceeding) was dismissed by a Federal Magistrate (Smith FM) on 22 February 2011. The appellant now appeals from the learned Federal Magistrate's orders dismissing the appellant's review proceeding. 6 The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 14 March 2011. It contains one purported ground of appeal in the following terms: 1. Decision made by the Federal Magistrates Court is not fair to me. 7 No written submissions were filed by the appellant in support of his appeal. He made short oral submissions (through an interpreter) to me this morning which did not attempt to identify any relevant unfairness. The appellant's oral submissions to me were directed to persuading me that the Tribunal ought to have been satisfied that he had practiced Falun Gong while living in China. In this regard, the appellant was seeking to have me determine the merits of his application which it is not open to me to do: see Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 271-272, 291. 8 In the review proceeding the appellant relied upon an application which contained two purported grounds of review in the following terms: 1. Refugee Review Tribunal denied procedural fairness to me. 2. The RRT member was very impatient to me. 9 The learned Federal Magistrate noted that there was no transcript of the Tribunal hearing before him and that it was necessary to look to its reasons for decision to see whether there might be any evidentiary foundation for the suggestion that the Tribunal's decision was affected by apprehended or actual bias. His Honour reviewed the Tribunal's reasons for decision for that purpose and could find no such foundation. 10 I have reviewed the Tribunal's reasons for decision to see whether there is any material in them which would provide any support for the suggestion that the Tribunal's decision was affected by actual or apprehended bias. I have also reviewed the Tribunal's reasons for decision to see whether there is any other reason to believe that the Tribunal might have committed jurisdictional error. 11 I am not satisfied that the Tribunal committed any jurisdictional error in dealing with the appellant's application for review of the delegate's refusal to grant the appellant a protection visa. Nor am I satisfied that there is any foundation for the appellant's complaint that the learned Federal Magistrate treated him unfairly or that the learned Federal Magistrate's reasons for judgment reveal any error by his Honour. In my opinion his Honour's decision was correct. 12 The appeal will be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Nicholas. Associate: Dated: 12 May 2011