SZBPG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1726

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBPG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1726 SZBPG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1611 OF 2005 STONE J 30 NOVEMBER 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1611 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZBPG

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE OF ORDER: 30 NOVEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal 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 NSD 1611 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZDZV

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE: 30 NOVEMBER 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate delivered on 5 September 2005 in which her Honour dismissed an application for review of a decision of the second respondent, the Refugee Review Tribunal ('Tribunal'). On 5 August 2003, the Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent not to grant the appellant a protection visa.

Background 2 The appellant, a citizen of Ukraine, arrived in Australia on 12 September 2002. On 20 September 2002, she lodged an application for a protection (Class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. On 4 February 2003, the delegate of the first respondent refused to grant the visa to the appellant and on 3 March 2003 she applied for review of that decision with the Tribunal. 3 According to her protection visa application, the appellant claimed to fear persecution on account of her membership of a particular social group; namely, young women forced into prostitution. She stated that her fear was of being forcibly sent overseas as a sex slave or that if she refused to co-operative with 'women traffickers' she would be murdered. 4 The appellant claimed that in Ukraine she was always under pressure from organised crime groups involved in trafficking in women. She stated that she was approached by members of these groups who offered her work overseas as a waitress. When she refused their offers, she claimed they threatened her and 'promised' that she would be kidnapped and delivered forcibly overseas as a sex slave. The appellant also claimed in her protection visa application that organised crime groups operated in Ukraine without any control from the Ukrainian authorities. The authorities were said to be corrupt, underpaid and without the means to fight the organised crime groups. On these bases, she stated that she feared for her life and safety and decided to leave Ukraine and seek protection.