FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA MZZOQ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 85 Appeal from: MZZOQ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCCA 3286 File number: VID 858 of 2015 Judge: JESSUP J Date of judgment: 10 February 2016 Date of hearing: 10 February 2016 Registry: Victoria Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 6 Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter Counsel for the Respondents: Mr A Aleksov Solicitor for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore ORDERS VID 858 of 2015 BETWEEN: MZZOQ Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: JESSUP J DATE OF ORDER: 10 FEBRUARY 2016 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the costs of the respondent Minister. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT JESSUP J 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia given on 16 November 2015 in which an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, published on 25 June 2013, was dismissed. In that decision, the Tribunal had affirmed an earlier decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa. 2 As recorded in the reasons of the Federal Circuit Court, the appellant then had a single ground for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision, namely, "Tribunal took irrelevant factors into consideration and decided not to grant visa." According to her Honour, the appellant did not say what the irrelevant facts were. It did not appear that the Tribunal did take into account any irrelevant facts, in which circumstance her Honour considered the ground to be of no substance. 3 In this appeal, the appellant has two substantive grounds, namely: (1) The appellant contends that the Tribunal has made jurisdictional errors which were not considered by the learned judge; and (2) The Tribunal has not afforded natural justice to the appellant. Save for what follows below, there is no respect in which the appellant's case in this appeal raises any issue as to the correctness of the disposition of his jurisdictional case by the Federal Circuit Court. 4 The one dimension of what could be considered to be a jurisdictional case – run below and repeated here – is the natural justice one. According to the judge in the Federal Circuit Court, in an affidavit filed in support of his application, the applicant said that the Tribunal had "refused with giving an opportunity" in his application and that there was no principle of natural justice followed. According to her Honour, the appellant then said that he had had no opportunity to provide evidence of what had happened to him in the past. But her Honour held that the Tribunal had given the appellant an ample opportunity to present his case. She noted that the Tribunal conducted two hearings and gave the appellant the opportunity to seek more time if it were required. Nothing the appellant has put before me this morning casts any doubt upon the way that her Honour disposed of the natural justice point, to the extent that there was one. 5 On appeal, the appellant submitted that his inadequate understanding of the procedure followed by the Tribunal, of the requirements cast upon an applicant in that forum, and the interpretation difficulties which he confronted at that level led, in effect, to a sufficient degree of unfairness in procedure to constitute jurisdictional error. He has filed no evidence in this Court in support of that allegation, and it does not appear to correspond with anything in his case before the Federal Circuit Court. Indeed, in that Court he relied upon a four-page written submission which said nothing about the difficulties to which I have referred. Quite clearly, I could not hold that the Federal Circuit Court was in error not to have decided the case favourably for the appellant by reason of difficulties of those kinds. 6 For the reasons I have given, the appeal must be dismissed. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jessup. Associate: Dated: 16 February 2016