SZRBC & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case •

[2013] HCASL 128

SZRBC & ORS

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 128
S61/2013

  1. 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. 

  2. In May 2011 the delegate of the first respondent refused the application. 

  3. The applicant sought a review of the delegate's decision before the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). 

  4. 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]]. 

  5. 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]]. 

  6. An application to the Federal Magistrates Court (Emmett FM) was dismissed.

  7. 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.

  8. The application is dismissed.

  9. 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

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0