SZVQR v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection

This case concerned an application for judicial review brought by SZVQR (the applicant) and her de facto spouse and child against the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The applicant, a citizen of China, arrived in Australia in 2005 and applied for a protection visa in 2013, claiming she would face persecution in China due to her religious beliefs and activities as an adherent of the Local Church. Her de facto spouse and child, born in Australia, were included in the application. The delegate of the Minister refused to grant the protection visas, and the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) affirmed this decision. The applicant sought review of the RRT's decision in the Federal Court.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the RRT had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant's claims for protection. Specifically, the Court was required to consider whether the RRT's findings that the applicant was not a witness of truth, had fabricated her claims regarding the Local Church, and that her evidence was implausible in several respects, were supported by the evidence and the applicable legal principles. This included examining the RRT's findings regarding the applicant's inconsistent evidence about arrests, the implausibility of certain aspects of her religious upbringing and family reactions, and the RRT's assessment of her subsequent church attendance in Australia. The Court also had to consider the RRT's findings on the complementary protection claims and the ability of the applicant and her partner to obtain hukou registration for their son.

Emmett J found that the RRT had not erred in law. The Tribunal's finding that the applicant was not a witness of truth was based on significant inconsistencies in her evidence regarding her arrests for religious activities, which the Tribunal detailed. The RRT's assessment of implausibility in other aspects of the applicant's evidence, such as her parents' alleged lack of awareness of her religious upbringing and their reaction to her arrests, was also a permissible finding of fact based on the evidence before it. The Tribunal was entitled to consider the applicant's delay in attending church in Australia and applying for a protection visa as factors casting doubt on the veracity of her claims, and to disregard her subsequent church attendance under s 91R(3) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) if it was satisfied her attendance was for the purpose of strengthening her refugee claim. Furthermore, the RRT's findings regarding the complementary protection claims and the ability to obtain hukou registration were also based on its assessment of the evidence and country information.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.