MZYOB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] HCASL 87

MZYOB

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2012] HCASL 87
M17/2012

1. The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China.  He claims to fear political persecution arising out of a dispute with the authorities over his pig farm.  He also claims to fear religious persecution as a Christian.

2. The Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") upheld a refusal by a delegate of the first respondent to grant the applicant a protection visa.  It found that the applicant's testimony was unconvincing and that he was not a credible witness.  That was because his testimony kept changing, and because it was implausible.  The Tribunal found it implausible that, after hitting a police officer on the head with a spade and rendering him comatose, the applicant was released after only 15 days detention.  The Tribunal did not accept that the pig farm had been requisitioned, that the applicant had engaged in a demonstration calculated to pressure the government into providing compensation, that there had been any altercation with the police or that he was a Christian.  It was not satisfied that there was a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted for a Convention reason if he returned to the People's Republic of China. 

3. The Federal Magistrates Court (Whelan FM) dismissed an application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision.  The applicant's challenges were largely directed to the Tribunal's factual findings.  None was found to suggest jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision.

4. The Federal Court of Australia (Tracey J) dismissed an appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court.  His Honour held that the applicant had failed to establish an appellable error. 

5. One complaint that the applicant made to the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court of Australia was that the Tribunal "ignored the influence of persecution and fear on his memory."  No examples were given and no evidence was called to support this claim.  The claim is repeated in the applicant's application for special leave to appeal to this Court.  If special leave were to be granted, the claim would have no prospects of success.  The same is true of the applicant's other two arguments – that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence carefully, and that it was biased.

6. The application is dismissed.

7. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

J.D. Heydon
20 June 2012 V.M. Bell