SZHDF v Minister for Immigration

Case •

[2009] FMCA 804

•

27 August 2009

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZHDF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2009] FMCA 804
MIGRATION – Visa – Protection (Class XA) visa – review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – citizen of China claiming fear of persecution on the grounds of religion and imputed political opinion – credibility – bias – apprehended bias – whether the Tribunal failed to consider documentary evidence submitted by the applicant – whether interpreter failed to interpret questions at the Tribunal hearing – merits review – whether Tribunal failed to comply with Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s.91R(3) – no jurisdictional error.
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.91R,424, 424A, 425, 474, 476
SZEPZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCAFC 107
SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 235 ALR 609; 81 ALJR 1190; [2007] HCA 26
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259; [1996] HCA 6
SZJGV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 170 FCR 515; [2008] FCAFC 105
SZMBS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCAFC 65
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJGV [2009] HCATrans 103
Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H (2001) 179 ALR 425; 75 ALJR 982
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407; 74 ALJR 405; [2000] HCA 1
Applicant: SZHDF
First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File Number: SYG 683 of 2009
Judgment of: Scarlett FM
Hearing date: 16 July 2009
Date of Last Submission: 16 July 2009
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 27 August 2009

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitors for the Applicant: No solicitor on the record
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr O'Donnell
Solicitors for the Respondents: DLA Phillips Fox

ORDERS

  1. The Application is dismissed.

  2. The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5,865.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 683 of 2009

SZHDF

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

  1. The Applicant, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, has applied under s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 20th February 2009. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant him a Protection (Class XA) visa.

  2. In his application, filed on 23rd March 2009, the Applicant seeks the following:

    i)A declaration that the Tribunal decision is invalid;

    ii)An order in the nature of certiorari setting aside the decision (and “each of them”); and

    iii)An order in the nature of mandamus remitting his application to a “differently constituted: Refugee Review Tribunal to be determined according to law.

  3. Whilst the application seeks an order that “the decisions and each of them” be quashed or set aside, there is only one decision under review, that of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 20th February 2009. The Court does not have jurisdiction to review the delegate’s decision, which is a primary decision (s.476).

  4. The Applicant also seeks an order in the nature of mandamus, remitting his application to “a differently constituted” Refugee Review Tribunal, however, it is doubtful, that the Federal Magistrates Court has the power on remitting a matter to the Tribunal to make any direction as to its constitution (SZEPZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs[1] at [30]).

    [1] [2006] FCAFC 107

Background

  1. The applicant arrived in Australia on 15th November 2004 and applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 24th December 2004. In a statutory declaration submitted with his application he claimed to have arrived in Australia on a Taiwanese passport in the name of another person. He claimed to have been a Private First Class in the People’s Liberation Army who was discovered to have been spreading the Gospel of the Christian religion.[2] He also opposed the policy of a military threat to Taiwan.[3]

    [2] Court Book 24

    [3] Court Book 27

  2. A delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs refused the application for a protection visa on 8th March 2005. The delegate disbelieved his claim to oppose the Chinese Government’s anti-Taiwan policy, saying;

    I am only able to reasonably conclude that he enlisted in the PLA with the full knowledge of that organisation’s attitude to his religious belief, and also of the Chinese government’s policy towards Taiwan, and his obligations as a member to support and enforce that policy.[4]

    [4] Court Book 46

  3. The delegate disbelieved the Applicant’s claim to fear persecution on the basis of his religion, stating:

    …I note that Christianity is a legally recognised religion in the PRC, and both registered and unregistered churches freely operate in his home province of Fujian.[5]

    [5] Court Book 47

Application to the Refugee Review Tribunal

  1. The Applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision on 8th April 2005.[6] He nominated a migration agent, Priscilla Yu, as his adviser. He provided a four page written submission to the Tribunal as to why he believed that the delegate was in error.

    [6] Court Book 48-51

  2. The Applicant attended a hearing of the Tribunal on 11th July 2005 and gave evidence.[7] The Tribunal handed down its decision on 18th August 2005, affirming the decision not to grant the Applicant a protection visa.[8]

    [7] Court Book 61

    [8] Court Book  86 - 101

  3. The Applicant applied to the Federal Magistrates Court for judicial review of the Tribunal decision and on 8th April 2007 Smith FM made orders by consent quashing the decision and remitting the matter to the Tribunal.[9]

    [9] Court Book 102-103

  4. The Applicant attended a second hearing on 28th June 2007 and gave evidence.[10] On 4th September 2007 the Tribunal handed down its decision, affirming the decision not to grant the Applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa.[11]

    [10] Court Book 110

    [11] Court Book 122-143

  5. Again, the Applicant sought judicial review of the decision from this Court. On 21st August 2008 Nicholls FM made orders by consent quashing the Tribunal decision and remitting the matter to the Tribunal for determination according to law.[12]

    [12] Court Book 144-145

  6. The Tribunal wrote to the Applicant, care of his migration agent, on 29th August 2008. The letter told the Applicant (inter alia):

    You are invited to provide any documents or written arguments you wish the Tribunal to consider which you have not already provided to the Tribunal. Any documents should be provided as soon as possible. Any documents not in English should be translated by a qualified translator. You should send both the documents and the translations.[13]

    [13] Court Book 148

  7. The Tribunal wrote to the Applicant on 24th September 2008, inviting him to attend a hearing on 30th October 2008. The Applicant attended the hearing and gave evidence with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin language.[14] He produced his passport and photographs of himself in army uniform, as well as some other handwritten documents and a typed document entitled Restriction and Suppression of Religious Freedom in China.[15]

    [14] Court Book 155

    [15] Court Book 156-170

  8. On 3rd December 2008 the Tribunal wrote to the Applicant, inviting him to comment on or respond to information that the Tribunal considered would, subject to his comments or response, be the reason or a part of the reason for affirming the decision.[16] The letter was written to comply with s.424A of the Migration Act and asked the Applicant to provide his comments or response by 17th December 2008.

    [16] Court Book 180-185

  9. The Applicant’s migration agent asked for an extension of time to comment or respond to the letter[17] but the Tribunal refused to grant the extension of time.[18]

    [17] Court Book 186

    [18] Court Book 188

  10. On 18th December 2008 the Applicant’s migration agent provided to the Tribunal a five page statutory declaration from the Applicant.[19]

    [19] Court Book 189-194

The Refugee Review Tribunal Decision

  1. The Tribunal made its decision on 20th February 2009, affirming the delegate’s decision not to grant the Applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa.[20]

    [20] Court Book 198

  2. In its reasons for decision[21] the Tribunal set out, under the heading “Claims and Evidence”:

    [21] Court book 199-236

    a)The application for a protection visa;

    b)The Applicant’s statutory declaration that accompanied his application;

    c)The documents the Applicant provided to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship;

    d)A summary of the Applicant’s written argument accompanying his application for review;

    e)A summary of the Applicant’s evidence at the first Tribunal on 11th July 2005;

    f)A summary of the Applicant’s evidence at the second Tribunal hearing on 28th June 2007;

    g)A summary of the Applicant’s oral evidence at the third Tribunal hearing on 30th October 2008;

    h)The documents that the Applicant provided at the Tribunal hearing;

    i)The section 424A letter sent by the Tribunal to the Applicant on 3rd December 2008;

    j)The Applicant’s statutory declaration dated 18th December 2008; and

    k)Country Information about the following:

    i)Conscription in China;

    ii)Fraudulent documents; and

    iii)The Lunar Calendar.[22]

    [22] Court Book 201-225

  3. In its Findings and Reasons, the Tribunal decided, after some consideration of the fact that the Applicant had entered Australia on a Taiwanese passport and some aspects of his evidence, to assess his claims on the basis that he is Chinese citizen who was born in Fujian province.[23]

    [23] Court Book 225

  4. The Tribunal made an adverse finding about the Applicant’s credibility, saying:

    The Tribunal did not find the applicant to be a truthful or credible witness and does not accept the claims that the applicant has made for a number of reasons which are discussed in detail below.[24]

    [24] Court Book 226

  5. The Tribunal then set out why it considered that the Applicant’s religious knowledge was lacking, which did not sit well with a person who had claimed to have attended an underground Christian church from 1990 to 2004.

  6. The Tribunal also considered the Applicant’s evidence about his military service and noted that his evidence did not correspond with the Independent Country Information:

    The Tribunal is of the view that the fact that the applicant has claimed he was forced to serve five years in the PLA, a claim that is not consistent with the country information, indicates to the Tribunal that he is not a truthful witness.[25]

    [25] Court Book 230 at [106]

  7. The Tribunal did not accept that the document entitled Military Service Personnel Identity Card was genuine;

    The Tribunal is of the view that the PLA would not issue an identification card without the birth date or age of the conscript or that was not in accordance with formal procedures. The country information before the Tribunal indicates that official documents can be bought and forged in China and that the irregular or improper use of documents is widespread. Given this country information and the problems with the identity card discussed above the Tribunal is of the view that the Military Service Identity card the applicant has submitted to the Tribunal is not genuine.[26]

    [26] Court Book 231-232 at [113]

  8. The Tribunal referred to problems and inconsistencies about the evidence provided by the Applicant as to:

    ·Where he lived in China

    ·Where he was living when the authorities had discovered he had distributed propaganda material

    ·When he left China

    ·When he obtained his Taiwanese passport

  9. The Tribunal made this finding about the Applicant’s credibility:

    The Tribunal is of the view that the fact that the applicant had made claims in his response to the section 424A letter that are inconsistent with the evidence he provides at the Tribunal hearings indicates to the Tribunal that the applicant is prepared to provide whatever information he thinks may be necessary to support his claims. The Tribunal is of the view that the inconsistencies and changes to the applicant’s story as to when he left China, when he left Taiwan, and when he obtained the Taiwanese passport indicates he has not provided a truthful account of his exit from China.

    Taking into account all of the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a witness of truth[27]

    [27] Court Book 234 at [127]-[128]

  10. The Tribunal went on to consider the Applicant’s claims about his conduct in Australia, that he had attended Christian churches at Padstow and Lidcombe, NSW. The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant had attended Christian churches but was not satisfied that the reason for his church attendance in Australia or his acquired knowledge of the Christian religion was other than to strengthen his claim to be a refugee. Accordingly, it stated that it disregarded this conduct under the provisions of s.91R(3) of the Migration Act.

  11. As the Tribunal found that there was no real chance that the Applicant would face persecution if he returned to China “due to his religion, membership of a particular social group or any other Convention reason”[28] the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant had a well founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason and affirmed the decision not to grant him a Protection (Class XA) visa.

    [28] Court Book 235 at [134]

Application to the Federal Magistrates Court 

  1. The Applicant filed an application and affidavit in support on 23rd March 2009. He seeks a declaration that the Tribunal decision is invalid and orders in the nature of certiorari and mandamus.

  2. The application contains three grounds of review:

    a)Ground 1 – The Tribunal’s finding has included a reasonable apprehension of bias.

    b)Ground 2 – The Tribunal failed to consider, properly and fairly, the documentary evidence which I have submitted to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal’s finding has included a reasonable apprehension of bias.

    c)Ground 3 – The Tribunal failed to consider, properly and fairly, my evidences and the Tribunal has made completely incorrect finding.

  3. It will be seen that there is a certain degree of overlap in these grounds.

  4. The particulars of the Applicant’s first ground are that he takes issue with the Tribunal’s finding at [100]:

    The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim that the Tribunal did not ask him about the bible or bible teachings or his religious beliefs or that he was confused with the questions the Tribunal asked him or that there were mistakes because the interpreter did not interpret questions properly and accurately. The Tribunal is of the view that although the applicant had some knowledge of Christianity and knew a few bible stories (which the Tribunal is of the view that he had learnt for the purposes of the Tribunal hearing) it was the applicant’s lack of understanding of Christian beliefs that made it difficult for him to explain what he had told the soldiers.[29]

    [29] Court Book 229

  5. The Applicant stated that:

    It is the fact that I have been confused with the questions put by the Tribunal at the Tribunal’s hearing or that there have been mistakes because the interpreter was unable to interpret questions properly and accurately.

  6. In the particulars of his second ground, the Applicant complained with the Tribunal’s finding at paragraphs [112] and [133][30] that the document he produced purporting to be a Military Service Personnel Identity Card was not genuine. He claimed:

    Apart from so-called country information, the Tribunal rejected my ID card issued by the army simp0ly with its unwarranted assumption that “…the PLA would not issue an identity card without the birth date or age of the conscript or that was not in accordance with formal procedures…”

    [30] Court Book 231

  7. The particulars of the Applicant’s Ground 3 are that:

    I do not think that the Tribunal has considered my evidences, and particularly, the Tribunal failed to consider, properly and fairly, my comment on and response to the information given by the currently constituted Tribunal as follows…   

  8. The Applicant then set out the entire text of his statutory declaration submitted to the Tribunal on 18th December 2008 in reply to the Tribunal’s s.424A letter.[31]

    [31] Court Book 190-194

  9. The Applicant did not file an amended application or any written submissions. He attended Court unrepresented and made oral submissions with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter.

  10. The Applicant submitted that the Refugee Tribunal had made an unfair decision on his case. He had answered all the questions on Christianity but the Tribunal did not believe that he was a Christian. He also submitted that the Tribunal took an unfair approach to his documentary evidence. It made a conclusion based on the authenticity (or lack of authenticity) of his military ID.

The First Respondent’s Submissions

  1. Counsel for the Minister (the First Respondent), Mr O’Donnell, submitted that the Tribunal’s letter to the Applicant of 3rd December 2008, in the form of a letter under s.424A of the Act, should more properly be seen as an invitation to provide information under s.424 of the Act. This was because none of the information disclosed in the letter was information that the Tribunal was obliged to disclose under s.424A of the Act. Country information is excluded by s.424A(3)(a), information given by the Applicant to the Tribunal is excluded by s.424A(3)(b), and inconsistencies and the Tribunal’s thought processes are not information for the purposes of s.424A (SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[32] at [18]).  

    [32] (2007) 235 ALR 609; 81 ALJR 1190; [2007] HCA 26

  2. As to the Applicant’s grounds of review, it was submitted as follows:

    a)Whilst Ground 1 alleges that the Tribunal’s decision is affected by apprehended bias (the test for which is if a fair-minded lay person might reasonably apprehend that the decision maker might not bring an impartial or unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question: Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy[33] at 343-357), the Applicant has not shown anything to create such an apprehension;

    b)Whilst Ground 2 alleges a failure by the Tribunal to consider the documentary evidence “properly and fairly” the only particular to which the Applicant refers is the Tribunal’s finding that the purported identity card was not genuine; and

    c)Ground 3, alleging a failure to consider the evidence “properly and fairly” and making an incorrect finding is no more than a request for merits review (Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang[34] at 272), which is impermissible.  

    [33] (2000) 205 CLR 337

    [34] (1996) 185 CLR 259; [1996] HCA 6

  3. Counsel for the Minister drew the Court’s attention to one issue relating to s.91R(3) of the Migration Act. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the reason for the Applicant’s church attendance or his acquisition of knowledge about Christianity was for anything other than to strengthen his refugee claims and so disregarded the evidence about his conduct in Australia.[35] However, Mr O’Donnell drew the Court’s attention to this statement in the Tribunal’s Findings and Reasons:

    The Tribunal finds that the applicant has acquired the knowledge in Australia.[36]

    [35] Court Book 235 at [130]

    [36] Court Book 227 at [94]

  4. Whilst this last sentence might raise concerns in the light of the Full Court decision in SZJGV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[37] at [24] and [25]), in that it might be thought that this sentence might indicate that the Tribunal did have regard to the Applicant’s conduct in Australia, it is submitted that this is not the case.

    [37] (2008) 170 FCR 515; [2008] FCAFC 105

  1. First, Mr O’Donnell submitted that, read fairly and without an eye “overly attuned to error” (Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang[38] at 272), the passage concerned does not indicate that the Tribunal had regard to the Applicant’s acquisition of his knowledge of Christianity in coming to its conclusion. It had already formed that conclusion and the final sentence is unnecessary and included only by way of context.

    [38] Supra

  2. The Tribunal’s reasoning is very similar to that recorded in SZMBS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[39] at [47]-[49].

    [39] [2009] FCAFC 65

  3. Second, it was submitted that this is a case within the exception identified by the Full Court in SZJGV at [25]. To the extent that the Tribunal was using the appellant’s conduct at all, it was not using his conduct but rather his motivation for that conduct in determining whether he fell within the definition of a refugee.

  4. Third, it was submitted formally that SZJGV was wrongly decided and the Minister preserves his position on appeal.

  5. As far as that submission is concerned, it is not for this Court to offer any opinion on whether SZJGV is wrongly decided. That is a matter for the High Court, which currently has the matter under consideration (Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJGV[40]).

    [40] [2009] HCATrans 103

Conclusions

  1. The Applicant’s Ground 1 and Ground 2 both complain that the Tribunal’s finding includes a reasonable apprehension of bias. No particulars of that claim have been provided except that the Applicant takes issue with the Tribunal’s overall findings and, more particularly, a claim that the Tribunal failed to give proper consideration to the Applicant’s documentary evidence.

  2. The test for apprehended bias has been set out by the High Court in Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H[41] at [27]-[28]:

    [27]The test for apprehended bias in relation to curial proceedings is whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehended that a judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question to be decided...[42]

    [28]Perhaps it would be better, in the case of administrative proceedings held in private, to formulate the test for apprehended bias by reference to a hypothetical fair-minded lay person who is properly informed as to the nature of the proceedings, the matters in issue and the conduct which is said to give rise to the apprehension of bias. 

    [41] (2001) 179 ALR 425; 75 ALJR 982

    [42] Footnotes omitted

  3. In this case, the Tribunal examined the evidence and arrived at its factual conclusions. The fact that the Applicant does no agree with the Tribunal’s findings does not establish any apprehension of bias.

  4. In the particulars of Ground 1, the Applicant reiterates the claim that he made to the Tribunal that the interpreter was unable to interpret the Tribunal’s questions “properly and accurately”. This claim remains as an assertion only. There is no evidence in the form of an affidavit or a transcript to show any failure by the interpreter at the hearing.

  5. The Applicant’s Ground 1 has not been made out.

  6. The Applicant’s second ground again alleges an apprehension of bias arising out of the Tribunal’s examination of the Applicant’s documentary evidence. The only document to which the Applicant refers in this ground is the Military Service Personnel Identity Card. The Tribunal set out its reasons at paragraphs [112] and [113] of the decision.[43]

    [43] Court Book 231-232

  7. The Tribunal’s finding that the ID card was not genuine, and its conclusion that the fact he was prepared to submit a “fraudulent document” to support his claims were open to the Tribunal on the evidence. There is no evidence to establish any apprehension of bias.

  8. The Applicant’s Ground 2 has not been made out.

  9. The Applicant’s third ground claims a failure by the Tribunal to consider “properly and fairly” his evidence and that this led to an incorrect finding. This amounts to no more than a challenge to the Tribunal’s factual findings and is a request for the Court to conduct merits review of the Applicant’s refugee claims. This is not permissible on judicial review.

  10. The Applicant’s Ground 3 has not been made out.

  11. Counsel for the Minister has referred to a possible breach of s.91R(3) by the Tribunal and has submitted that it is not a breach at all. In my view, the answer can be found in the decision of the Full Court in SZMBS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[44] where Emmett, Bennett and Middleton JJ said at [48] and [49]:

    [48]The most that can be said is that the Tribunal concluded that any religious knowledge the appellant displayed in oral evidence was acquired as a result of her attendance at meetings in Australia…A fair reading of the Tribunal’s reasons demonstrates that the Tribunal did not have regard to the appellant’s conduct in Australia in concluding that any religious knowledge that she displayed was acquired as a result of her attendance at meetings in Australia. Rather, the Tribunal made an assessment of the appellant’s credibility. That assessment was based on the way in which she gave her evidence and on the matters that caused concern to the Tribunal, as set out above.

    [49]The reference to the appellant’s having acquired religious knowledge from her attendance in Australia does not involve the Tribunal in having regard to the appellant’s conduct in Australia in determining whether she has a well founded fear of being persecuted in China. In that context, it is significant that the Tribunal expressed its concern on the basis of the appellant’s lack of knowledge of the bible. In context, the Tribunal made the reference to her acquisition of religious knowledge when making primary findings of facts in order to ascertain whether s 91R(3) was engaged.

    [44] supra

  12. There is a striking similarity between SZMBS and the decision under review. In the circumstances, following SZMBS, I find there was no failure to comply with s.91R(3) of the Act.

  13. Mindful that the Applicant is not legally represented in these proceedings, my independent examination of the Tribunal decision and supporting documents discloses no arguable case of jurisdictional error.

  14. Counsel for the Minister, perhaps rather pedantically, prefers to characterise the Tribunal’s letter to the Applicant of 3rd December 2008 as a request for information under s.424 rather than a letter under s.424A inviting the Applicant to comment on or respond to information in writing. Be that as it may, it is not necessary to make a formal finding on that point as it is not a matter of controversy between the parties.

  15. However, in circumstances where it appears that it is not strictly necessary for the Tribunal to comply with s.424A because none of the information upon which comment or a response is sought falls strictly within the ambit of s.424A(1), it appears to me to be preferable for the Tribunal to follow the requirements of s.424A in a situation where it is not strictly necessary than to fail to do so where it is necessary.

  16. There is no breach of s.424A, not of s.424, for that matter.

  17. The Tribunal complied with the requirements of s.425 by inviting the applicant to a hearing in a way that complied with s.425A. It provided him with an interpreter in the language of his choice and, notwithstanding his complaint about the interpreter in the particulars of Ground 1, there is no evidence that the interpreter was not up to the task.

  18. The Tribunal decided the matter on the basis that it rejected the Applicant’s credibility, which is a matter for the Tribunal (Re

    [45] (2000) 168 ALR 407; 74 ALJR 405; [2000] HCA 1

    Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Durairajasingham[45]. After the delegate’s decision, the Applicant should have been on notice that everything was in issue. There was no failure to provide a fair hearing under s.425 of the Act.

  19. There is no jurisdictional error. The Tribunal decision is a privative clause decision (s.474(2)) and is not, therefore, subject to mandamus, declaration or certiorari (s.474(1)).

  20. The application will be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding sixty-seven (67) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate:  V. Lee

Date:  19 August 2009


Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

11

Statutory Material Cited

1

SZEPZ v MIMA [2006] FCAFC 107
SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] HCA 26
SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] HCA 26