MZYTC v Minister for Immigration

[2012] FMCA 606

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZYTC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2012] FMCA 606

MIGRATION – Refugee Review Tribunal – credibility findings – no jurisdictional error identified – application dismissed.

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 58 ALD 609; (2000) 168 ALR 407; (2000) 74 ALJR 405; [2000] HCA 1

Applicant: MZYTC

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: MLG 1767 of 2011

Judgment of: Riley FM

Hearing date: 12 June 2012

Date of Last Submission: 12 June 2012

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 12 June 2012

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the applicant: The applicant was not represented.

Counsel for the applicant: The applicant appeared in person.

Solicitors for the first respondent: Clayton Utz

Counsel for the first respondent: Nick Wood

Solicitors for the second respondent: Clayton Utz

Counsel for the second respondent: No appearance

ORDERS

1. The application filed on 16 December 2011 be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,471.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 1767 of 2011

MZYTC

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

1. This is an application for a review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The applicant filed his application to this court on

   
   

   16 December 2011.  It says the grounds of the application are that the applicant is not satisfied with the Tribunal’s decision.  On the same day, the applicant filed an affidavit.  In that affidavit, he said, “Because I am not satisfied from RRT decision, so that’s why I am going to appeal in Court.”

2. The essence of the applicant’s claims are that his cousin formed a relationship with a girl of a higher caste and the applicant acted as a go-between for them.  The applicant said the girl’s family were very upset about the relationship and killed his cousin.  The applicant said that the girl’s family would kill him if they had the opportunity. 

3. The Tribunal did not accept any of the applicant’s evidence.  The Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence to be lacking in detail, extremely vague and unconvincing.  The Tribunal found that the applicant was not a truthful or reliable witness in regard to his acting as a go-between.  The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant’s cousin was ever in a relationship with a girl from a different caste. 

   
   

   The Tribunal found that the applicant had fabricated his evidence for his own purposes. 

4. The applicant appeared before the court today without legal representation, but with the assistance of an interpreter.  The applicant explained to the court that he had, in fact, affected the girl’s family’s reputation and the family wanted to kill him, as a result. 

5. The first respondent submitted that the applicant had not identified any jurisdictional error.  The first respondent submitted that the decision of McHugh J in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 58 ALD 609; (2000) 168 ALR 407; (2000) 74 ALJR 405; [2000] HCA 1 applied to this case.  In particular, the Minister referred to paragraph 67, where McHugh J said:

   … this was essentially a finding as to whether the prosecutor should be believed in his claim – a finding on credibility which is the function of the primary decision-maker par excellence.

6. Durairajasingham remains good law.  There is no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal making a finding of credibility against an applicant, except perhaps in rare circumstances, which have not been identified in this case. 

7. In all of the circumstances, there is no option but to dismiss the application, with costs.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Riley FM

Date:  18 July 2012