SZJZE & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] HCASL 177

SZJZE & ANOR
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 177
S580/2007

1. The applicants are husband and wife and are citizens of Indonesia.  On 24 May 2006 a delegate of the first respondent refused their application for protection visas.  On 28 November 2006 the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision to reject their application.  The applicant claimed that her husband had passed information about a terrorist by the name of Dr Azahari to the police, resulting in a raid of Dr Azahari's residence and a gun battle which led to his death.  She claimed that the applicants' house, which was nearby, had been partially destroyed in the course of this gun battle, and that the applicant husband's involvement in the raid had led to threats being made against them by the Jemaah Islamiyah organisation.  The applicants also claimed to fear persecution in Indonesia on the basis that they were ethnically Chinese and of the Christian faith.  The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant husband had provided the information to the police.  It could not, therefore, be satisfied of their claim to fear persecution for this reason.  It did not accept that they would be prevented from practising their religion or would otherwise be persecuted, and rejected the claims put on this basis.

2. On 21 June 2007 the applicants' application for review of the Tribunal's decision was dismissed by the Federal Magistrates Court (Scarlett FM).  His Honour held that there was no basis for interference with the Tribunal's findings.  The Tribunal relied upon inconsistencies in the applicants' evidence in coming to its adverse credibility findings, and its findings on the religious and ethnic persecution grounds were open to it.  There was no evidence of incompetent translation amounting to a breach of s 425 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

3. Middleton J dismissed the appeal to the Federal Court on 30 October 2007.  There was no evidence before the Court supporting the claim of breach of s 425 of the Act, no other jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision and no error on the part of the Federal Magistrate.

4. The applicants have not identified any question of law that would justify a grant of special leave to appeal.  There is no error of law arising out of the decisions below and no reason to doubt their correctness.

5. 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
24 April 2008