SZIPT v Minister for Immigration
[2007] FMCA 289
•28 February 2007
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZIPT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2007] FMCA 289 |
| MIGRATION – RRT decision – Indian claiming persecution for Marxist political activities – disbelieved by Tribunal – disclaimer on reliance on inconsistencies between oral evidence and visa statement – Tribunal did not totally ignore claims made in visa statement – no jurisdictional error found. |
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.424A, 424A(1), 425, 474, 476
Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2003) 75 ALD 630
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323
Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Durairajasingham(2000) 168 ALR 407
SZEEU v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2006) 150 FCR 214
| Applicant: | SZIPT |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG1004 of 2006 |
| Judgment of: | Smith FM |
| Hearing date: | 28 February 2007 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 28 February 2007 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr R Killalea |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Mr J Mitchell |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | DLP Phillips Fox |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $6,000, including costs arising under Order 2 made on 14 August 2006 and not including costs arising under Order 3 made on 19 September 2006.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG1004 of 2006
| SZIPT |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)
This is an application filed on 4 April 2006 in which the applicant seeks orders under s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Migration Act”) in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) dated 20 February 2006 and handed down on 16 March 2006. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate made on 2 August 2005 refusing to grant a protection visa to the applicant.
Section 476 gives the Court “the same original jurisdiction in relation to migration decisions as the High Court has under paragraph 75(v) of the Constitution”. It is subject to limitations under s.474, which have the effect that I do not have power to remit the matter to the Tribunal unless I am satisfied that the Tribunal’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error. I do not have power myself to decide whether the applicant’s refugee claims should be believed, nor whether he qualifies for a protection visa.
The applicant arrived in Australia on a three month business visa in November 2004, and on 6 January 2005 he applied for a protection visa. His application indicated that he was an Indian national, and attached a two page “Statement of Claim” setting out a history upon which he sought protection in Australia.
The applicant claimed to have been involved in political activities while still at school and subsequently until 2001, when he left India for a period of residence in Oman. His statement said:
Completion of my higher secondary education, I joined in Indian National League as a full time worker. During the State and National level election period (INL), contesting the election with the support of Communist Marxist Party (CPM).
Attracted by the policies and secularism implemented by the CPM, I joined in the party in the year 2000.
As a young party worker District Committee of CPM appointed me as a regional controller of [location] local committee. Thereafter I was discharging my duties and responsibilities to the satisfaction of District committee of CPM.
In the month of December 2000, one night about 20 members of BJP, RSS extremists came to my house and threatened me to leave the association with CPM or leave the country. One of the gang members was shouting to me, “Go to Pakistan”. I reported this incident to the local police station. But, the police department refused to lodge the complaint.
Thereafter RSS, BJP extremists threatened me and my family members as well on the streets and at home. My younger sister [name] aged 17 years – student of plus 2 was coming from her school. She was coming by a public transport bus. When the bus was reaching at our stop, conductor of the bus opened the door and pushed her out on the road. The conductor was well known RSS extremist and his aim was to kill her in an accident. Fortunately she survived with some wound. On that night I received a phone call from an unknown person threatening that, if I complained this incident to the police blaming RSS or BJP, the consequences will be more serious and danger.
In the midst of life threats from RSS, BJP extremists I was working sincerely for the progress of CPM. My willingness and dedication in the party programs helped the growth of the CPM and hundreds of youngsters joined in the party. This increased the anger of BJP, RSS extremist and they attacked my house. They destroyed all the house hold and electronic devices and shouted anti Islamic slogans. They searched each and every neck and corner of the house for me. Fortunately I was not in the house, otherwise could be killed.
This attack was totally unbearable to my party colleagues. They insisted me to lodge a complaint to the police and take necessary steps to seek protection. This was totally unacceptable to my family especially aged mother. She insisted me to leave the country. Desire to save myself and my family I flew to Sultanate of Oman on 21st April 2001.
The applicant then referred to his having led a peaceful life in Oman, but being unable to continue in business there. He said that after obtaining a business visa to visit Australia, he visited India briefly:
Then after getting visa for Australia I decided to go back to India. My ambition was to the last and final possibility to lead the peaceful life in my own home land along with my family. I returned to my home on 29th September 2004. Thereafter I met party works of CPM and involved in political and social programs. With the knowledge of my return to India, the old extremists gang of RSS, BJP came to my home and demanded for 100,000 = Indian Rupees as donation. I refused to pay the money because I could not get hold of such a big amount.
Next morning, I was going to [place] along with my party colleague Mr. S. While we were waiting for a bus, a group of RSS, BJP extremists jumped up on us beaten up severely. I saved my life by running away from the incident. My friend and colleague, Mr. S beaten up seriously near to death. He was in the hospital when left the country on 18th November 2004.
I came to Sultanate of Oman on 18th November 2004 giving up all hopes and dreams of living peacefully along with my family getting married my girlfriend.
Finally I came to Australia on 25th November 2004. Therefore, requested that my application for protection Visa may please be dealt with a positive approach sympathetically and be granted a protection visa so that I can lead a safe and peaceful life.
No supporting evidence or further details of these claims were ever presented to the Department, nor to the Tribunal prior to the applicant attending a hearing which was rescheduled for 30 January 2006. The applicant did not present any supporting documents, but answered questions put to him by the Tribunal. A transcript of almost all of the hearing is in evidence before me and I have read it. It is clear, in my opinion, that the Tribunal had before it the applicant’s visa statement, and questioned the applicant in order to test the credibility of its contents. The Tribunal gave a description of the hearing in its statement of reasons, which both counsel accepted gave a proper picture of what happened.
The applicant referred to attending college in Kerala and leaving college in 1997. The Tribunal’s description of the hearing then proceeded:
I asked him what he did after 1997 and before he left for Oman in 2001. He told me that he stayed in Mumbai and Bangalore for a short time and after that he went from state to state. In 2001 he was advised to leave India because he had been harassed and threatened by members of the RSS wherever he went throughout India.
I asked him to give me an account of where he had lived and worked during between 1997 and 2001. He told me that during this time he occasionally returned home before leaving for another state. I pressed him to give me details of his various residences however he found it difficult to respond. He said in 1997 he had gone to Mumbai and lived there for 6 months, working as a shop assistant. After that he went to Pune, but could not remember how long he stayed in Pune and was not working during that time. He claimed that he had stayed with a friend who had arranged accommodation and food with the help of the Marxist party. After he stayed in Pune he then went to Bangalore and thought that he lived there on his own for about 1 year and worked as a shop assistant. He claimed that the Marxist party helped him find accommodation in Bangalore. After that he tried to go to different places in India. He went to Chennai and Trichy but did not remember the period of time he stayed in various places.
He told me that during his travels to various states of India, he had no difficulty with different languages or different locations because he always sought the help of his party colleagues and other people who originated from the state of Kerala. Further he had no difficulties supporting himself because his friends and party colleagues helped him with his financial support. He told me that he was 26 years old and not married and had run a very successful business in Oman before he was forced to leave because of Omani government policy.
After earlier advising him that the hearing was an opportunity to set out his claims in some detail, I asked him why he feared returning to India. He told me he took the help of one of his friends named S and that he and S had faced attack from members of the RSS and his head had been cut and S’s leg had been cut off.
I asked him to give me a fuller account of why he believed he was in danger of being targeted for harm. He then repeated his earlier evidence that after he left college he went to Mumbai and Bangalore where he stayed for some time, however in each place he would be harassed by members of the RSS who were active across India, and was advised to leave to go to Oman.
As it was quite difficult to obtain a detailed account of his claims, I took him back to his claims of joining a political party and asked him to tell me about his history of involvement in politics. He claimed that whilst he was at school he became a member of the Muslim League. When I asked him to tell me a little bit about the goals and objectives of the Muslim League, he told me he did not know all those goals and was learning about the party whilst he was a member. I asked him whether he had joined the Muslim League because he had grown up in a Muslim family and he agreed it was one of the reasons that he joined the party.
He then told me that he changed parties and became a member of the Marxist party while he was at school. I asked him why he would join the Marxist party, a party which did not support any religious goals or objectives, when he was a Muslim and member of the Muslim League. I put it to him that it was difficult to reconcile a person having a commitment to the Muslim League, then suddenly changing his allegiance and joining the Marxist party. He stated that at his age he did not think about those issues and was simply trying to avoid personal persecution as a member of the Muslim League. He claimed that as a member of the Marxist party he got greater protection from the party and this was the reason he joined. He claimed that as a student he was taunted by members of the Marxist party on weekends, who asked him why he did not join their party. This was the reason he decided to join the Marxist party. He told me he did not know anything about the Marxist party but thought he should save himself and then think about what party he believed in after he was safe. When I asked him what he knew about the Marxist party in Kerala, he agreed that he did not know anything about the party. He told me he simply wanted to survive and was not interested in the goals and objectives of the party and did not have much of an active role in the party. Further he did not have any official status in the party. He did not know anything about different factions of the party or their history of government or influence in the state of Kerala. He did not know which faction he had belonged to because he did not seem to be aware that the party had different factions.
I asked him why he thought he would be targeted for harm if he went to another part of India. He told me that he had already tried to live in different parts of India but the RSS had chased him in those places and he had to leave and go to Oman. I asked him why the RSS would target him when, even on his own evidence, he did not have much active involvement in the party. He told me that the RSS are all over India and probably have a list of people who are members of the Marxist party and they target them wherever they go in India. I put it to him that given the very large population of India, this was very difficult to accept, even if I accepted that he was a fairly inactive member of the Marxist party. He told me that it was not necessary to be an important or high profile member of the Marxist party to be targeted by members of the RSS, who wanted to make trouble for people.
The applicant was also asked further questions as to what he feared if he returned to India, and gave further details of the claimed attack which he had suffered when he returned to India in September 2004.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that it was having difficulty “with his account of events for reasons already discussed with him during the hearing”. In my opinion, it is apparent that the applicant was alerted to the possibility that all “his account of events” might be disbelieved. At the end of the hearing the applicant was given the opportunity “to tell me about your claims you don’t think we’ve covered”, and to respond to a general invitation “anything you wish to put to me or any more information”.
No issue is taken in the grounds of review in this Court to the fairness of the Tribunal’s proceedings. It is not contended the applicant was denied the opportunity required by s.425 of the Migration Act, nor that he was not alerted to the issues that arose in the review before the Tribunal. Counsel for the applicant did, however, spend time taking me through the transcript upon an argument that its contents aided the understanding of the reasons given by the Tribunal for affirming the delegate’s decision. I shall deal with this argument below.
In its statement of reasons, the Tribunal referred to country information about India and about the political parties referred to by the applicant. Under the heading “Findings and Reasons”, it identified in general language the applicant’s refugee claims, in a manner which was not criticised:
The applicant claims to fear persecution from members of the RSS who have threatened him with harm because he was a member of the Marxist Party. He claims that he returned to India from Oman in September 2004 and was attacked by members of the RSS and as a result he left India and has sought protection in Australia. He also claims that he does not wish to be a member of the Marxist party and that he will be targeted for harm by members of the Marxist party for reasons of his rejection of his previous membership. He claims that the police cannot provide him with reasonable protection and that he cannot relocate in India because the RSS has a network throughout India and he will not be safe wherever he lives.
The Tribunal then made some introductory observations:
I have considered the applicant’s claims in his protection visa application and review application and his oral evidence.
I am required to determine whether the applicant has a well founded fear and if so whether what he fears amounts to persecution for a Convention related reason. My first task is to make findings on material questions of fact and then to give reasons for my decision.
After hearing the applicant give evidence and discussing his claims I find that the claims made at hearing represent the applicant’s claims for refugee status. Whilst there are inconsistencies between his written claims and claims at hearing I have determined the application on the information given to the Tribunal and the inconsistencies between his written claims and oral evidence are not the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review.
The Tribunal’s final paragraph in the above extract provides the focus of the single ground of review relied upon by the applicant’s counsel. This contends that the paragraph reveals the Tribunal putting out of consideration entirely the factual claims made by the applicant in his original visa application. I shall consider the arguments in support of the ground below, after indicating the full course of the Tribunal’s reasoning.
After making the above observations, the Tribunal referred to the general obligation on the Tribunal to make findings of fact “on the claims he or she has made. This may involve an assessment of the credibility of the applicant”. It then gave a brief explanation of why it rejected the applicant’s refugee claims to have suffered persecution by reason of an association with a Marxist party:
I did not find the applicant to be a truthful or credible witness. I formed the view that the applicant was unprepared to be tested on the specific details of his claim and found it difficult to fabricate those details because he had no experience to draw upon to give that specific evidence.
I accept that the applicant is a Muslim and I accept that he was born and educated in Kerala state. I accept that he left Kerala in 2001 and that he lived and ran a business in Oman until 2004.
I do not accept that the applicant joined the Muslim League when he was at school in Kerala. The applicant knew nothing of the goals and objectives of the Muslim League. I do not accept that the applicant changed his membership to the Marxist party whilst he was at school. His reasons for changing membership were implausible and I do not accept his explanation that he was changing membership to obtain greater protection from the Marxist party. I do not accept that the applicant was a member, a supporter or even had a passing interest in any of the Marxist parties operating in Kerala at the time the applicant was at school. He admitted that he knew nothing about the Marxist or Communist Party in Kerala and claimed he was going to find out more information after he joined. However despite claiming that he was a member from 1997 to 2001 he had not acquired the most basic knowledge of the party, its history or organisational structure. He was not aware that the party was organised in various factions and that one Marxist party has had a significant influence on state politics in Kerala. He did not know which faction to which he had belonged. When faced with basic questions about the nature of the party he admitted that he did not have an active role in the party. I consider that he gave evidence that he did not have an active role because at hearing he was unprepared to be tested on matters outside his experience.
As I do not accept that the applicant was ever a member of a Marxist Party I do not accept that after 1997 he moved from state to state to avoid harassment and threats by members of the RSS. I am supported in this finding by the evidence of the applicant which was vague and generalised when he was pressed to give details of time spent in various residences and his means of support between 1997 and 2001.
As I do not accept that the applicant was ever a member of a Marxist Party, I do not accept that the applicant returned to India from Oman in September 2004 and resumed his interest in the Marxist party thereby resulting in an attack by members of the RSS which caused him injury. I also do not accept that he will be harmed by members of the Marxist party because he has rejected continuing membership of that party.
The Tribunal also considered the situation of the applicant as a Muslim, and did not consider that there was any chance of mistreatment or harm on this ground. It found “that if the applicant returns to India now or in the foreseeable future he will not face a real chance of persecution for reasons of political opinion or for reasons of his religion”.
Counsel for the applicant addressed a third amended application filed at the hearing, which presented the ground and particulars:
1.The RRT failed to attain, or failed to exercise jurisdiction by reason that the RRT erred in law in failing to take into account particulars of the Applicant’s claim or failing to discharge its duty of review (s.414, Migration Act).
Particulars
Applicant’s Statement of Claim (CB 27), including:
(i)(CB 27.2) “Attracted by the policies and secularism implemented by the CPM, I joined in the party in the year 2000”
(ii)(CB 27.25) “As a Young party worker District Committee of CPM appointed me as a regional controller for [a] local committee. Thereafter I was discharging my duties and responsibilities to the satisfaction of the District committee of CPM”
The RRT found (CB 90.8):
“After hearing the applicant give evidence and discussing his claims I find that the claims made at hearing represent the applicant’s claims for refugee status. … I have determined the application on the information given to the Tribunal and the inconsistencies between his written claims and oral evidence are not the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review.”
The above particular claims at (i) and (ii) were not raised in the hearing before the RRT and were not considered by the RRT (Transcript; Affidavit of Angelovski of 30 Nov 06 refers).
The Applicant did not disclaim the above claims (See Transcript).
Counsel for the applicant accepted that, before the Tribunal made its statement: “I have determined the application on the information given to the Tribunal and the inconsistencies between his written claims and oral evidence are not the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review”, its reasons clearly indicated that it was aware of the factual claims made in the original visa application. This is clear, because the Tribunal accurately summarised them earlier in its decision. Moreover, the applicant’s refugee claims were not presented to the Department nor the Tribunal in any manner other than in his original visa statement. As I have indicated above, I also consider that the transcript, and the Tribunal’s description of the hearing, indicate that the Tribunal had sought to address and test the claims in the visa statement by questioning the applicant about them at the hearing.
Counsel for the applicant also accepted that prima facie the Tribunal’s statement: “I have considered the applicant’s claims in his protection visa application and review application and his oral evidence”, was an express acknowledgement by the Tribunal of having considered the factual claims in the original visa application statement.
However, counsel argued that the paragraph under attack contained a statement to the contrary, and that the Tribunal’s subsequent reasons given for rejecting the applicant’s credibility did not address in particular the opening statements by the applicant in his visa statement concerning his party work in his home district.
When attempting to understand the Tribunal’s reasoning, I must bear in mind the latitude required by the High Court in Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 277 and 291.
Read in the context of the Tribunal’s overall reasoning and the manner in which the proceedings had developed in the Tribunal, I consider that the critical paragraph should not be read as a disclaimer by the Tribunal of an appropriate consideration of the applicant’s original written statement. I consider that the paragraph indicates no more than, as is apparent from the Tribunal’s subsequent reasoning, that it was able to determine the lack of credibility of the applicant’s claims by an assessment of the evidence he gave at the hearing, without a need to rely upon inconsistencies between that evidence and his original visa statement. I do not consider that the Tribunal’s reasons should be read as indicating that it declined to consider the original refugee claims, to the extent that they might be capable of reconciliation to the applicant’s later evidence given at the hearing.
Thus, I would not read the Tribunal’s statement: “I find that the claims made at hearing represent the applicant’s claims for refugee status”, as indicating a finding that his claims should only be found in his evidence given at the hearing. Rather, the Tribunal should be understood as meaning that, to the extent of any inconsistencies, it found that his later evidence indicated the claims relied upon by him. It was indicating that it intended to disregard the inconsistent parts of the earlier written statement, and also to disregard the fact that he had earlier made inconsistent statements, when assessing his refugee claims.
I would similarly not understand the Tribunal’s statement: “I have determined the application on the information given to the Tribunal and the inconsistencies between his written claims and oral evidence are not the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review”, as meaning that it determined the matter on the evidence given to the Tribunal only, in disregard of all the claims made in the original visa statement.
That statement by the Tribunal preceded a general discussion of the duty of the Tribunal to determine the credibility of claims, including by references to inconsistency in their presentation and their plausibility and coherence. It is introductory to the Tribunal’s explanation of the reasons which it identified for disbelieving that the applicant had any association with a Marxist party. Manifestly there were inconsistencies between the applicant’s written statement and his oral evidence, which might have reflected upon his credibility. These included the applicant’s different explanations for joining the Marxist party, his written claim to have been appointed as a “regional controller of [his home town] local committee”, compared with his disclaimer of not having “any official status in the party”, and his written claim to have been actively performing duties as the local committee controller in his home town, compared with his account to the Tribunal of leading a peripatetic life in India. However, the Tribunal was also presented with other aspects of the applicant’s evidence which also reflected upon the applicant’s credibility.
In my opinion, the Tribunal’s reference to not determining the application “on … the inconsistencies …” was intended only to indicate to a reader of its reasons that it had not found it necessary to use those inconsistencies “as a part of the reason for affirming the decision that is under review” so as to give rise to duties under s.424A(1). Noting the date of the Tribunal’s decision soon after the Full Court’s discussion of s.424A in SZEEU v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2006) 150 FCR 214, it is understandable that the Tribunal should have been concerned to explain why it had not felt it necessary to serve such a notice. In my opinion, this paragraph did no more than that.
I find confirmation of this understanding of the paragraph in the Tribunal’s subsequent reasons, rather than the converse. The first reason given by the Tribunal for rejecting the applicant’s credibility was that he was “unprepared to be tested on the specific details of his claim and found it difficult to fabricate those details because he had no experience to draw upon to give that specific evidence”. This indicates that the Tribunal drew a general conclusion about the content and manner of the applicant’s responses to its questioning upon the contents of his original visa statement. The Tribunal then explained specific elements in his responses to questions which it found detracted from his credibility.
Counsel for the applicant pointed to the absence, in the Tribunal’s discussion of the applicant’s credibility, of any express discussion of the two particularised elements in the original visa statement. However, I would not draw an adverse conclusion from the absence of that discussion such as is permitted on principles discussed in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 at [10], [35], [69], [75]), and in Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2003) 75 ALD 630 at [47]:
[47]The inference that the tribunal has failed to consider an issue may be drawn from its failure to expressly deal with that issue in its reasons. But that is an inference not too readily to be drawn where the reasons are otherwise comprehensive and the issue has at least been identified at some point. It may be that it is unnecessary to make a finding on a particular matter because it is subsumed in findings of greater generality or because there is a factual premise upon which a contention rests which has been rejected. Where, however, there is an issue raised by the evidence advanced on behalf of an applicant and contentions made by the applicant and that issue, if resolved one way, would be dispositive of the tribunal’s review of the delegate’s decision, a failure to deal with it in the published reasons may raise a strong inference that it has been overlooked.
In my opinion, the present reasoning of the Tribunal falls within the warning by the Full Court that an inference of a failure to deal with a matter should not be drawn where it is implicit in the reasoning of the Tribunal that it has dealt with the matter by a finding of “greater generality” or by the rejection of factual premise (and cf. Yusuf (supra) at [91]). In the present case the Tribunal has made such a finding, in its conclusion refusing to accept that the applicant “was ever a member of a Marxist party”. I am therefore unprepared to draw the inference argued by the applicant’s counsel from the absence of specific discussion.
Moreover, I am inclined to read the Tribunal’s reference to “I do not accept that the applicant was a member, a supporter or even had a passing interest in any of the Marxist parties operating in Kerala at the time the applicant was at school”, in combination with the Tribunal’s reference to the applicant’s lack of knowledge of the Marxist or Communist Party in Kerala, as an oblique rejection of the applicant’s original suggestion that he had been attracted by Marxist ideology.
Counsel for the applicant also sought to support a reading of the critical paragraph as indicating a deliberate disregard of the contents of the original visa application, by taking me to passages in the transcript of the hearing. In my opinion, there is a significant difficulty in construing transcripts of hearings as evidence of reasoning processes ultimately performed by a Tribunal. As with judicial comments in the course of a hearing, the statements of the Tribunal member can provide evidence only of provisional and incomplete thoughts about the issues in the review.
In the present case, I do not think this transcript significantly aids an understanding of the ultimate reasons given by the Tribunal. What it does not show, in my opinion, is a Tribunal which had at the time of hearing decided to ignore the applicant’s written statement or any part of it. Rather, as I have indicated above, I would take the converse view – that the written statement provided the foundation for the Tribunal’s questioning of the applicant throughout the hearing.
As a matter of practicality, it is difficult to see how the Tribunal could have decided the refugee claims of the present applicant, other than by starting with his written statement, testing him at a hearing on its contents, and then assessing the responses he gave to the Tribunal’s questions. In my opinion, this is how the Tribunal has decided this case. Ultimately, it was able to determine that he should not be believed by an assessment only of his responses at the hearing. The fact that the Tribunal might have proceeded with other reasoning when rejecting his credibility, does not prove that it has failed to consider any necessary matter (cf. Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Durairajasingham(2000) 168 ALR 407 at [65]).
For the above reasons I do not accept the ground argued on behalf of the applicant, and I must dismiss the application.
I certify that the preceding thirty‑three (33) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Smith FM
Associate: Lilian Khaw
Date: 16 March 2007
0
4
0