SZTDZ v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection

The applicant, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) to affirm a delegate's refusal to grant her a protection visa. The applicant claimed to be a Christian and feared persecution in China, specifically the risk of forced sterilisation due to family planning policies. The RRT had considered the applicant's evidence, including her statements to the Department, her testimony at the hearing, and country information provided by her migration agent.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the RRT had erred in its assessment of the applicant's credibility regarding her Christian faith and whether it had correctly determined the risk of forced sterilisation upon her return to China. The RRT had found the applicant lacked basic knowledge of Christianity and the Bible, citing inconsistencies in her responses during departmental interviews and at the hearing. Regarding the risk of forced sterilisation, the RRT concluded, based on country information, that such a practice was not widespread in Fujian province and that any coercion would likely be through public pressure rather than physical force.

Emmett J reasoned that the RRT's findings regarding the applicant's knowledge of Christianity were open to it on the evidence. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the applicant's explanations for her lack of knowledge were not credible, particularly as some explanations were not provided at the hearing. Furthermore, the RRT's assessment of the risk of forced sterilisation was also open to it. The Tribunal had regard to the country information, including that submitted by the applicant's agent, but was not persuaded that there was a real chance of forced sterilisation, noting that much of the information concerned China generally rather than Fujian province specifically. The Tribunal also did not accept that the applicant had been previously approached by family planning officials. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm or met the criteria for complementary protection.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.