SWKB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1217

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SWKB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1217 SWKB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS No S136 of 2004 FINN J ADELAIDE 16 SEPTEMBER 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S136 OF 2004

BETWEEN: SWKB

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: FINN J

DATE OF ORDER: 16 SEPTEMBER 2004

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S136 OF 2004

BETWEEN: SWKB

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: FINN J

DATE: 16 SEPTEMBER 2004

PLACE: ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a Thai national of Chinese ethnicity who has applied unsuccessfully for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). 2 In his original application he claimed he left Thailand because of systematic discrimination over many years because of race, both during his education and in employment. He has a university education but was unable to get suitable employment and he was in fact unemployed at the time he left Thailand. He claimed racial discrimination against ethnic Chinese was practised and condoned by the Thai government. 3 His application was rejected by a delegate of the respondent Minister on the bases (i) of country information contradicting the practice of discrimination against ethnic Chinese which he had alleged; and (ii) that the harm of which he complained was not "serious" for the purposes of s 91R of the Migration Act and that there was no evidence that he lost his job for a Convention reason. 4 In applying to the Refugee Review Tribunal to review the delegate's decision, the applicant contested the accuracy of the country information relied upon by the delegate. This application was signed by the applicant. There is nothing on its face to suggest he was assisted in its preparation by an interpreter, a lawyer or otherwise; nor is there anything in the Tribunal's reasons to suggest such was not the case. 5 At the Tribunal hearing he abandoned the claims he made in his original application. He acknowledged that these were false and that they had been prepared by his lawyer. In their stead he substituted a second version of claims. This related to an event involving what he said was his used car business. The Tribunal recorded his claim in the following terms: "One of his clients was the owner of an illegal casino. By a combination of unfortunate circumstances and an agreement the casino owner would bring cars to the applicant of gamblers who could not pay their debts. The applicant would pay money to the casino owner and resell them. As time went on powerful people including the mafia, politicians and police had their cars confiscated for non payment of debts. These people approached the applicant to have their cars returned. The applicant wanted his money back from the casino owner. It was not forthcoming. He believes his life is at risk from these powerful people if he returns to Thailand."