SZKQM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2008] HCASL 406
SZKQM
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 406
S111/2008
The applicant is a citizen of Thailand. On 18 November 2008 a delegate of the first respondent refused her application for a protection visa. On 24 April 2007 the Refugee Review Tribunal refused her application for a review of the delegate's decision. The applicant claimed to fear persecution from Muslim men in her community, who had pressured her family to convert to Islam. She claimed that the men had kidnapped, raped and threatened her. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), noting inconsistencies between her oral evidence and the content of her application, but the applicant did not respond. The Tribunal found that the applicant was not a credible witness and that the applicant's credibility was critical to the acceptance of her claims. Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected her account in its entirety.
On 26 September 2007 the Federal Magistrates Court (Turner FM) dismissed an application for review of the Tribunal's decision. The applicant alleged that she had not received the s 424A letter, and argued that the letter itself contained insufficient information. His Honour found that the s 424A letter had been validly sent. To the extent that the letter did not contain information relied upon by the Tribunal in reaching its decision, that information triggered the exception in s 424A(3)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal's credibility finding was open to it.
On 6 March 2008 Branson J dismissed the applicant's appeal to the Federal Court. Her Honour rejected the applicant's submission, that the s 424A letter was invalid unless sent by registered mail. Under s 441A(4) of the Act, a s 424A letter may be sent by "prepaid post". Her Honour noted the extensive authority for including ordinary post within the definition of "prepaid post". Further, her Honour queried whether the Tribunal was under any obligation to send a s 424A letter in this case, noting the decision in SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[1].
[1](2007) 81 ALJR 1190; 235 ALR 609; [2007] HCA 26.
The application does not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The applicant's grounds of appeal seek to cavil with clear authority: 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 31 July 2008
0
2
0