Reeves, Zimmawu v Minister of State for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

[1997] FCA 1135

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 586 of 1997

BETWEEN:	ZIMMAWU REEVES APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER OF STATE FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

CORAM:	DAVIES J
DATE:	7 OCTOBER 1997
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an appeal from a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal given on 4 July 1997.  The court has no power to decide Mr Reeves' application for refugee status for itself.  It is limited to considering certain grounds of review, one of which is that the procedures required to be followed by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) were not observed. Another is that the decision involved an error of law, being an error involving an incorrect interpretation of the law.

I am not satisfied that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal was unfair.  In his written submissions Mr Reeves has not alleged any unfairness in the procedures adopted. The decision of the Tribunal occupies 23 pages and carefully examines the facts.  Thus, it has not been established that the procedures required by the Act were not observed. 

Mr Reeves had sought refugee status on the ground that he had been compelled to join the National Party Front of Liberia.  Mr Reeves said in his application that he had escaped from the movement and that the National Party Front of Liberia would harm him and he would be punished severely or killed if returned to Liberia.  The Tribunal, however, rejected Mr Reeves' evidence.  The Tribunal held that:

“...the applicant's claims lack credibility.  The Tribunal has found this because of the totality of implausibilities, omissions and inconsistencies (both between the Applicant's evidence given at different times and between the Applicant's evidence and the country information available).  Each factor considered on its own may not have discredited the Applicant's claims, but taken as a whole, the Tribunal finds the Applicant is not a credible witness and is not satisfied that his claims about crucial matters are truthful.”

The Tribunal also said that it was not satisfied that the applicant was Liberian or that he was conscripted forcibly or otherwise by the National Party Front of Liberia.  As the Tribunal rejected Mr Reeves' evidence, its decision turned on a point of fact, not on a point of law. 

Mr Reeves has stated that he is a citizen of Liberia brought up speaking the Hausa language, although not a member of the Hausa tribe. It is not implausible that Mr Reeves could have been brought up as he said and it is not entirely implausible that he could have encountered all the problems that he said he did encounter in Liberia. Much of what were said to be inconsistencies in his evidence and incorrect statements in his evidence could be attributed either to interpretation or to the different culture under which he was brought up. I find a lack of persuasion in reasons such as these where an applicant has told a complex story; yet the Tribunal has simply rejected the evidence as a whole.  For example, the Tribunal said:

“...the Tribunal accepts that, on its own, it is not implausible that the Applicant could be a Hausa from Liberia.  However he was inconsistent as to his racial lineage.  In particular in his protection visa application he stated that his paternal grandfather was Krahn and his paternal grandmother was Mandingo, so the Applicant's father considered himself to be a Krahn.  However, in the hearing, he stated that his paternal grandfather was a Kru, and he further stated that his father spoke Kru and Kru English.”

What I find to be not persuasive in the Tribunal's decision is that details were given which could very well be true or could be explained by someone who lived in the country; yet they were rejected without any such inquiry being made. Many of the problems that the Tribunal mentions could be caused by cultural differences and the inability of the applicant for refugee status to speak in the English language or to speak in English concepts.

However, the decision was a decision of fact and the Refugee Review Tribunal was the decision maker of fact.  It is not for this court to form its own view on the facts. I am not satisfied that the decision of the Tribunal involved an error of law. 

The application will therefore be dismissed with costs.

I certify that this and the preceding
two (2) pages are a true copy
of the Reasons for Judgment herein

of the Honourable Justice Davies.

Associate:

Dated:            7 October 1997

The applicant appeared in person.

Counsel for the respondent:  A. Markus, solicitor
Solicitor for the respondent:  Australian Government Solicitor
Date of hearing:  7 October 1997

Date of judgment:  7 October 1997