SZOXP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2011] HCASL 195

SZOXP
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2011] HCASL 195
S276/2011

1. The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China and last arrived in Australia on 16 November 2007.  He applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 22 June 2009.  On 4 June 2010, a delegate of the first respondent refused his application. 

2. On 7 December 2010, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the delegate's decision.  The applicant claimed to fear persecution arising out of his forced involvement in bribery and corruption in China by Department Two of the General State Headquarters of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) having responsibility for the collection and dissemination of military intelligence.  The Tribunal found that whilst some of the applicant's assertions, in particular regarding his involvement in bribery in China were true, the applicant had manufactured various claims in order to found a claim for protection and that the documentary evidence submitted by the applicant did not support his claims.

3. On 16 May 2011, the Federal Magistrates Court (Driver FM) dismissed the applicant's application for review of the Tribunal's decision.  The grounds advanced by the applicant centred on the Tribunal's treatment of certain emails submitted in support of his application, certain factual findings made by the Tribunal, and its failure to find whether Department Two existed.  Driver FM found that even if the Tribunal had been mistaken about the dates of the particular emails, such a mistake did not amount to jurisdictional error.  There was no failure by the Tribunal to consider relevant considerations.  The balance of the applicant's complaints went to the merits.  Driver FM held that the Tribunal's decision was free from jurisdictional error.

4. On 2 August 2011, the Federal Court (Rares J) dismissed the applicant's appeal.  His Honour found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law in the primary judge's decision.

5. The application to this Court does not advance any questions of law that would justify the grant of special leave to appeal.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions below.

6. 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
1 December 2011