Yilmaz v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[1999] FCA 927

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Yilmaz v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 927

IMMIGRATION - application to Refugee Review Tribunal for protection visa - Tribunal disbelieved applicant's account - no error of law demonstrated

SENGUEL YILMAZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
NG 1377 of 1998

MADGWICK J
15 JUNE 1999
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 1377 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	SENGUEL YILMAZ Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent
JUDGE:	MADGWICK
DATE OF ORDER:	15 JUNE 1999
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is dismissed.

2.The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 1377 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	SENGUEL YILMAZ Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK
DATE:	15 JUNE 1999
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:

1. In this matter the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") rejected the applicant's application to be afforded protection as a refugee because the Tribunal member, Mr Blair, found that the applicant could not be believed.  As submitted by the Minister ("the respondent") this finding was open to the Tribunal on the basis of serious contradictions within the applicant's evidence and on the basis of inconsistencies between the applicant's claims and independent country information. 

2. It appears from the material before this Court that the Tribunal member raised these concerns with the applicant.  Indeed, whilst interviewing the applicant he took the view that she was "making it up as she went along" and he raised this concern directly with her.  The applicant has admitted having told a number of early lies to the immigration authorities, but it seems that she went on to tell further lies, at least in the view of the Tribunal member.  There is a wealth of material that would have entitled him to reject entirely what she said since there was no independent material that could lend any support to her specific claims.  There was therefore no material upon which the Tribunal could have been satisfied of the applicant's claims and the Tribunal was not only well entitled but, it would seem, obliged to reject her account.  The various lies found by the Tribunal member are exhaustively dealt with and discussed by him.  Their refutation is well documented and appears to me to have been, with respect, well argued and well supported by other material that was before the Tribunal. 

3. As pointed out by counsel for the respondent, the Tribunal member might have disposed of this matter shortly by making a finding that effective protection was available to the applicant in Germany, where apparently she has an unrestricted right of permanent residence.  The finding that effective protection was available in Germany was well available to the Tribunal, but nevertheless the Tribunal member did his best to assess all of the applicant's claims serially. 

4. The applicant made a number of claims.  First, it was claimed that she was from Palestine (and had never been to Turkey) and had been the victim of attacks over her lifetime by masked gunmen who raided her village and shot and killed the inhabitants.  Further, she claimed that she had been discriminated against by the Israeli security services.  All these claims, she subsequently admitted, were entirely fabricated.

5. Second, the applicant stated that she had been persecuted in Turkey.  She claimed that she had been targeted by the Turkish government for being associated with Kurdish political parties and community organisations.  The Tribunal also found that those claims were fabricated.  There were other claims that might possibly sound in a Convention reason for persecution, namely that she feared her own family in Turkey, in effect, for having divorced her de jure husband, and that she was persecuted in Germany by her former de jure husband, presumably for having divorced him and brought dishonour on him as a Muslim.  The Tribunal member could not accept any of this material either.

6. Finally, the applicant claimed that she was persecuted in Germany and would be in Turkey, on account of her Kurdish ethnicity and/or her adherence to the Alawite sect of the Islamic faith.  The Tribunal did not accept that she was either Kurdish or followed that religious faith and again there is ample material which could have justified this conclusion.

7. I can see no sign of any error of law which might sound in judicial review or otherwise, nor do I find any procedural error on the part of the Tribunal that might give the applicant relief before this Court. 

8. It is apparent that she does not understand the limited role of the Court.  She appears before the Court in great distress.  She voices what is apparently her present main concern, that she should not be separated from her de facto husband, with whom she says she is now living in Australia.  If there is any basis for the Minister to consider these matters, either as to her staying here or as to the method of her ceasing to stay here, then she may raise the matter with the Minister, but there is nothing I can do about them. 

9. In the circumstances, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.  The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:

Dated:             15 June 1999

Counsel for the Respondent:	D Jordan
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	15 June 1999
Date of Judgment:	15 June 1999