Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJGV

The parties in this matter were the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (the appellant) and visa applicants (the respondents). The dispute concerned the Refugee Review Tribunal's (RRT) ability to draw adverse inferences about the credibility of visa applicants based on their participation in Falun Gong-related activities in Australia. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether section 91R(3) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) permitted the RRT to use evidence of conduct engaged in by visa applicants in Australia to make findings adverse to their claims to be refugees. Specifically, the court had to determine the scope of the direction to disregard conduct in Australia and the effect of the qualification in paragraph (b) of that section, which stated the direction did not apply if the person engaged in the conduct "otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person's claim to be a refugee."

The High Court reasoned that section 91R(3) directs decision-makers to disregard conduct engaged in by a person in Australia when determining whether that person has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. However, this direction is qualified by paragraph (b), which provides an exception: the conduct will not be disregarded if the person satisfies the Minister that the conduct was not engaged in solely for the purpose of strengthening their claim to be a refugee. The Court agreed with the construction that an applicant relying on conduct in Australia must demonstrate it was not solely for the purpose of strengthening their claim. Conduct that reflects a continued commitment to practices or opinions held in their country of origin, rather than being solely for the purpose of bolstering their refugee claim, could be relied upon by a decision-maker to infer prior commitment. The Court found that the construction adopted by the Full Court of the Federal Court was erroneous.

The High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court and making consequential orders regarding costs in the Federal Magistrates Court and the High Court.