SZJVY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] HCASL 325

SZJVY
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 325
S97/2008

1. The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China and arrived in Australia on 25 July 2005.  On 19 September 2005 a delegate of the first respondent refused his application for a protection visa.  On 2 December 2005 the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision.  That decision was set aside by the Federal Magistrates Court on 7 July 2006 and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal.  On 14 November 2006 the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's original decision.

2. The applicant claimed to fear persecution as a Falun Gong practitioner, claiming that he lost his job and was detained and mistreated on this account.  He also claimed that his wife had been kidnapped and detained for investigation for the same reason.  The Tribunal formed an adverse view of the applicant's credibility, finding that his evidence was inconsistent, contradictory and implausible.  It also noted country information to the effect that it would be very difficult for persons of interest to the authorities to exit China using a passport in their own name, as the applicant had done.  It rejected his claim to be a Falun Gong practitioner and all claims flowing from that central claim.

3. On 25 October 2007 the Federal Magistrates Court (Nicholls FM) refused the applicant's application for review of the Tribunal's decision. His Honour found that the Tribunal's credibility findings were open to it and rejected a claim that the Tribunal's decision lacked a logical and rational foundation. There was no failure to consider the claims in accordance with s 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and no misunderstanding by the Tribunal of the meaning of "persecution". There was no breach of s 424A of the Act, no denial of procedural fairness, no failure to comply with s 425 of the Act and no evidence to sustain a claim of bias.

4. On 26 February 2008 the Federal Court (Graham J) dismissed the applicant's appeal.  His Honour noted that the Tribunal was not obliged to expose its reasoning processes to the applicant and that there was no breach of s 424A.  His Honour found no error in the decision of the Tribunal or the Federal Magistrate.

1. The application to this Court does not advance any question of law that would justify the grant of special leave to appeal.  No question of principle arises and there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions below.

1. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

W.M.C. Gummow	S.M. Kiefel
12 June 2008