Maqsood v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1355

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Maqsood v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1355

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Federal Court Rules O 20 r 2(1)(a), O 54B r 5 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 74 ALJR 405 at [67] followed MOHAMMAD NAYYER MAQSOOD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 1094 OF 2001 STONE J SYDNEY 20 SEPTEMBER 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1094 OF 2001

BETWEEN: MOHAMMAD NAYYER MAQSOOD

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE OF ORDER: 20 SEPTEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: the application be dismissed with costs Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1094 OF 2001

BETWEEN: MOHAMMAD NAYYER MAQSOOD

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE: 20 SEPTEMBER 2001

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan who arrived in Australia on 18 December 2000. On 22 January 2001 he applied, under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), for a protection (class XA) visa. His application was refused by a delegate ("Delegate") of the respondent and this decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("Tribunal") on 22 June 2001. On 19 July 2001, the applicant commenced proceedings in this Court seeking review of the Tribunal's decision.

tribunal's decision 2 An applicant for a protection visa must have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had such a fear and therefore affirmed the Delegate's decision refusing to grant a protection visa. The fundamental reason for the Tribunal's decision is that it did not believe the applicant's story; it stated that that his account was "riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies". 3 The Tribunal correctly directed itself as to the manner in which it should approach the question of the applicant's credibility in reviewing the applicant's claims. The Tribunal relied on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status 1992 and the cases of Chen Xin He v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Nicholson J, 23 November 1995, unreported), Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437 and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 to make the following points: · if an applicant's account appears credible, the applicant generally should be given the benefit of the doubt provided the applicant's statements are coherent and plausible and are not contrary to known facts; · the Tribunal should not only consider inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence but should also determine what evidence it does find credible; · the Tribunal need not accept the applicant's claims uncritically; and · it is for the applicant to persuade the Tribunal that he has a well-founded fear of persecution for the reasons claimed.