SZTPF v Minister for Immigration

[2015] FCCA 186

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZTPF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2015] FCCA 186

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Review by Refugee Review Tribunal – whether Refugee Review Tribunal considered applicant’s claim – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Applicant: SZTPF

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2976 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Manousaridis

Hearing date: 13 June 2014

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 30 January 2015

REPRESENTATION

Applicant appeared in person.

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms Carr of
DLA Piper Australia

ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2976 of 2013

SZTPF

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The applicant, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, applied for a protection visa. The ground on which he claimed protection was an asserted fear arising out of what the applicant alleged was the demolition of his home by developers without the applicant’s consent, and his being beaten by police when he offered resistance.[1]

   [1] CB58-61

2. A delegate of the first respondent (Minister) refused to grant the applicant a protection visa. The delegate’s decision was affirmed by the second respondent (Tribunal). The Tribunal did so because it did not accept the applicant to be a witness of truth.[2] The Tribunal found that the “totality of his oral evidence shows a propensity to manufacture evidence in an attempt to overcome evidential problems”.[3]

   [2] CB127-130, [63]-[75]

   [3] CB129, [75]

Application for judicial review

1. In his application for judicial review before this Court, the applicant relied on the following grounds:

   My home renovation cost 3 million Yuan. But, the authorities would give me half of it as compensation. I tried to stop their bulldozer for which I was persecuted. I tried my best to escape. Then, with my friend’s assistance, I left China to Australia.

   But, the Refugee Review Tribunal member didn’t accept my past experience in China. And said that if I return to China, I won’t be persecuted.

   The Tribunal ignored the true facts. The Tribunal’s decision is not just and made jurisdictional error.

2. At the hearing the applicant, who was not legally represented, did not make any oral submissions in support of these grounds.

3. The first two paragraphs do not disclose any jurisdictional error. They only express disagreement with the Tribunal’s findings of fact.

4. The third paragraph does not identify the facts the applicant claims the Tribunal ignored. I will take this paragraph, however, as claiming that the Tribunal did not consider the applicant’s claims, and the evidence he advanced to the Tribunal in support of his claims.

5. In my opinion, there is no merit in the applicant’s claims. The Tribunal’s reasons indicate that it considered, and considered in detail, the applicant’s claims before it. The Tribunal set out the applicant’s claims and evidence, the evidence the applicant gave at the hearing before the Tribunal on 3 October 2013, and the reasons for the Tribunal not accepting the applicant’s evidence. The matters on which the Tribunal relied for concluding the applicant was not a witness of credit were matters on which it was reasonably open for the Tribunal to rely for so concluding.

Disposition

1. The applicant’s application will be dismissed. I propose to order that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Manousaridis

Associate: 

Date: 30 January 2015