SZLBC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2008] FCA 728
•21 May 2008
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZLBC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 728
SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152
Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437SZLBC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 260 OF 2008
WEINBERG J
21 MAY 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 260 OF 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZLBC
Appellant
AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
WEINBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:
21 MAY 2008
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs, to be taxed in default of agreement.
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 260 OF 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZLBC
Appellant
AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
WEINBERG J
DATE:
21 MAY 2008
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BACKGROUND
On 13 June 2006 the appellant, a citizen of Pakistan, arrived in Australia. He applied for a protection visa a month later, on 12 July 2006. His application was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 18 September 2006. He applied for review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”) on 11 October 2006. He attended a hearing before the RRT on 19 December 2006.
The RRT made its decision on 28 May 2007 and provided a written copy of its reasons to the appellant on 19 June 2007. It affirmed the decision of the delegate.
Briefly, the appellant claimed that he came from a mixed Shi’a and Sunni Muslim background and leant towards the Shi’a faith of his mother’s family. He had a cousin who was an active and prominent supporter of the Shi’as in their district. In June 2003 his cousin was shot and killed. Two persons were convicted of that murder in 2005. The appellant claimed that he and his family had been threatened by those responsible for the murder prior to their arrest, and that he had relocated to Lahore to avoid their threats. He also claimed to have suffered threats of harm and harassment from members of the Sunni organisation known as the SSP, a body of violent proponents of Sunni supremacy in Pakistan.
The RRT accepted the appellant’s account of the violent nature of the SSP. However, it did not accept that he was a witness of truth in relation to his own claimed history. It set out several points of dissatisfaction with his evidence and concluded that he had “created his claims in order to obtain the visa sought”. In stating its conclusion, the RRT reminded itself of the need for special care in assessing the credibility of applicants for protection.
The RRT stated that it rejected the appellant’s evidence in its “totality”. It did not accept that he was in fact a Shi’a, or that he had suffered harm, as he claimed. It found that his cousin had not been murdered by SSP supporters by reason of his Shi’a religion, as the appellant claimed, and that the appellant had not gone into hiding. It concluded that he was actually a Sunni, and on this basis found that he did not face any real chance of persecution for a Convention reason if he were to return to Pakistan.
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT
The appellant relied on an amended application and written submissions, the contents of which, as Smith FM put it, “appear to be ill-considered repetitions from precedents used in other cases, or contain arguments that are unintelligible”. His Honour found that the RRT had fairly recorded and properly considered all of the appellant’s claims. He concluded that it was open to the RRT to have reached the view that it did regarding the appellant’s credibility.
Smith FM raised with the Minister the question whether the RRT’s finding that the appellant had “access to a source of fabricated documents”, and its ultimate rejection of the authenticity of the appellant’s supporting documents, might indicate a failure to comply with s 425 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). See generally SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152. The Minister submitted in reply that, on the material before the Court, it could not be said that the appellant was not on notice that his credibility generally, including the authenticity of his supporting documents, had been in issue before the RRT. Accordingly, s 425 had not been contravened.
THE APPEAL
The notice of appeal is also formulaic, making no reference to any aspect of the reasoning of either Smith FM or the RRT. The only specific legal issue that is mentioned – the application of the principles found in Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437 – is one that has no application to the present case.
The appellant appeared before me unrepresented. He could point to no error in the RRT’s reasons for decision. He challenged only its findings of fact.
The RRT’s decision turned solely upon an assessment of the appellant’s credibility as a witness. The adverse conclusion that it reached was open to it on the material before it. The appellant’s claims were fully explored at the hearing and there is no reason to doubt that the RRT’s difficulties with his evidence were also properly ventilated. In addition, the delegate’s statement of reasons for decision was sufficient to put the appellant on notice that his credibility would be a pivotal issue on review.
I can discern no error in the reasoning of Smith FM. It follows that the appeal must be dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Weinberg. Associate:
Dated: 21 May 2008
The appellant appeared in person Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr G. Kennett Solicitor for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 21 May 2008 Date of Judgment: 21 May 2008
4
2
0