SZKGH v Minister For Immigration And Citizenship and Anor
[2008] HCASL 475
SZKGH
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 475
S238/2008
The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China. On 16 August 2006 a delegate of the first respondent refused her application for a protection visa. On 17 January 2007 the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. The applicant claimed to have been persecuted because of her role in the Shouters church. Although the Tribunal was prepared to accept that the applicant was a practicing Christian, it was not satisfied that she was involved in the Shouters church in China.
On 5 December 2007 the Federal Magistrates Court (Scarlett FM) refused an application for review of the Tribunal's decision. His Honour rejected each of the applicant's complaints. His Honour was not satisfied that there was any breach of s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). As to the applicant's complaint that the Tribunal made a finding without the support of substantial evidence, there was no requirement that the Tribunal produce evidence in order to disprove the applicant's claims. The obligation was on the applicant to provide evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that she met the requirements of the visa. There was no evidence of the Tribunal having ignored, misunderstood or misstated her claims and no evidence of bias.
On 16 May 2008 McKerracher J dismissed the applicant's appeal to the Federal Court. His Honour agreed with the conclusions reached by Scarlett FM and noted that the Tribunal was not required to consider whether the applicant would continue to practise her religion with the Shouters church if she were returned to China, in view of its finding that she was never an active member of that church.
The applicant's written case is, for the most part, devoted to factual assertions. To the extent that any argument is developed, the applicant contends that the Tribunal failed to meet its obligations under s 424A of the Act. However, s 424A does not oblige the Tribunal to reveal its thought-processes to the applicant. The Tribunal's decision was ultimately a factual finding grounded in the Tribunal's adverse view of the applicant's credibility. No question of law has been raised sufficient to justify the grant of special leave to appeal and there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions below.
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 28 August 2008
0
0