SZRBC & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

SZRBC & ORS
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2013] HCASL 128
S61/2013

The first applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh and the second and third applicants are his wife and child. In March 2011, the applicants applied for protection visas. The substantive protection claims were those made by the first applicant.
In May 2011 the delegate of the first respondent refused the application.
The applicant sought a review of the delegate's decision before the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").
The first applicant's protection claims were based on his alleged involvement with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). He provided documents to the Tribunal to corroborate this claim [RRT [103]]. Following the hearing, the Tribunal put the applicant on notice that it may not give weight to those documents. In further submissions made after that notice was given, the first applicant made no comment about this indication [RRT [158]].
The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. It rejected the first applicant's evidence as untruthful. Its reasons for that conclusion included that the applicant's evidence differed widely from his account in the statement made in support of his application [RRT [115], [155]]. The Tribunal found his explanation for that inconsistency unconvincing. The material in the applicant's documents did not alleviate the Tribunal's concerns as to the credibility of his account. In the result, the Tribunal did not give weight to the assertions in the documents [RRT [159]]. It found that there was no credible evidence that the first applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution based on any Convention grounds [RRT [171]-[172]].
An application to the Federal Magistrates Court (Emmett FM) was dismissed.
The applicants appealed to the Federal Court of Australia (Collier J). Her Honour rejected a contention that it had not been open to the Tribunal to give no weight to the documents[1]. Nothing in the material filed in support of the application casts doubt on that conclusion or on her Honour's reasons more generally for concluding that the Federal Magistrate had correctly determined the application for judicial review. If special leave to appeal were granted the appeal would have insufficient prospects of success.
[1]SZRBC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCA 197 at [25] citing Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002 (2003) 77 ALJR 1165 at 1174 [49] per Gummow and McHugh JJ; 198 ALR 59; [2003] HCA 30.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
14 August 2013 S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involves three applicants, SZRBC and his wife and child, who sought protection visas from the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. SZRBC, a citizen of Bangladesh, made the substantive claims for protection, based on his alleged involvement with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. The delegate of the first respondent initially refused their application for protection visas in May 2011. The Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) also rejected their claims, finding the evidence provided by SZRBC to be untruthful and not giving weight to his documents. The Tribunal concluded that there was no credible evidence of a well-founded fear of persecution based on any Convention grounds. The applicants subsequently sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision in the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court of Australia, but both courts dismissed their applications.

The legal issues the court was required to decide in this case included whether it was open to the Tribunal to give no weight to the documents provided by SZRBC and whether the Tribunal's decision was correct. The applicants contended that the Tribunal had erred in finding that their evidence was untruthful and in not giving weight to the documents. The court needed to assess the correctness of the Tribunal's decision in light of the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles.

The court found that the Tribunal was entitled to give no weight to the documents provided by SZRBC and that there were no errors in the Tribunal's decision. The court also held that the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court of Australia had correctly dismissed the applicants' applications for judicial review. The court concluded that the applicants' appeal to the High Court had insufficient prospects of success and dismissed the application. The court further directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

In summary, the court upheld the decision of the Tribunal to give no weight to the documents provided by SZRBC and found no errors in the Tribunal's decision. The court also dismissed the applicants' applications for judicial review, finding that they had insufficient prospects of success. The appeal to the High Court was dismissed, and the court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established