SZJFL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2007] FCA 1125
•31 July 2007
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZJFL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1125
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 424A
SZJFL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FMCA 421 affirmed
SZJFL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 584 OF 2007HEEREY J
31 JULY 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 584 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
SZJFL
AppellantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
HEEREY J
DATE OF ORDER:
31 JULY 2007
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Refugee Review Tribunal be added as the second respondent.
2.The appeal be dismissed.
3.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed at $3600.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 584 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
SZJFL
AppellantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
HEEREY J
DATE:
31 JULY 2007
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court which dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal which had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse the grant of a protection visa. Details of the appellant’s application, the decision of the Tribunal, and the reasons of the Federal Magistrate are contained in the decision of the Federal Magistrate, SZJFL v Minister for Immigration [2007] FMCA 421, which is available on the internet.
The appellant is a 43 year old female citizen of the People’s Republic of China. Her claim for a protection visa was based on what was said to be a well founded fear of persecution as a member of the Falun Gong.
The Decision of the Tribunal
The Tribunal asked her a number of questions probing her account of involvement with Falun Gong and her travels to and from China. After the hearing and before making its decision the Tribunal wrote to the appellant in accordance with s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). In its letter the Tribunal outlined inconsistencies between the original protection visa application and the evidence provided at the hearing. There was no response from the appellant.
The Tribunal made adverse credibility findings based on the significant change in the appellant’s story about her association with Falun Gong, the inconsistencies in her account of her employment history in China and her complete lack of knowledge of Falun Gong. There were also inconsistencies in her account of her detention. The Tribunal did not find the appellant to be a witness of truth. It did not accept her assertion that she was a Falun Gong practitioner in China and that she distributed Falun Gong books and literature in that country. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the appellant had fabricated these claims.
The Decision of the Federal Magistrate
In her application to the Federal Magistrates Court, the appellant claimed, first, that the Tribunal relied on wrong independent information; secondly, that the Tribunal had bias and failed to consider the application according to s 91R of the Act; thirdly, that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate particulars of independent country information; fourthly, that the Tribunal failed to consider the appellant’s claims; and fifthly, that the Tribunal failed to assess the chance of persecution on return to China. The Federal Magistrate rejected these claims for the reasons more particularly set out at [14]-[30] of that decision.
The Appeal to the Federal Court
The notice of appeal filed in this Court alleged first that the Tribunal had bias against the appellant and misunderstood her claims; secondly, that the Tribunal relied on irrelevant material with the country information relied on being out of date and hearsay; thirdly, that the Tribunal did not provide adequate particulars of the independent current country information; and fourthly, the Magistrate erred in failing to find jurisdictional error.
On appeal the appellant was not legally represented but was assisted by an interpreter. When invited to say anything in support of her appeal the appellant said, “I don’t know what to say”.
I find no error in the decision of the Federal Magistrate. It was plain that the appellant’s case was not accepted by the Tribunal because, for the reasons it gave, it did not accept her credibility. No ground was advanced as to why the Federal Magistrate erred upholding the Tribunal’s decision. As to bias, there was no more than a bare assertion unsupported by any particulars or evidence.
The Court orders that:
1.The Refugee Review Tribunal be added as the second respondent.
2.The appeal be dismissed.
3.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed at $3600.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice HEEREY. Associate:
Dated: 31 July 2007
Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondents: B.D. O'Donnell Solicitor for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 31 July 2007 Date of Judgment: 31 July 2007
0