SBVC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 74

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SBVC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 74 APPLICATION – decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – adverse findings of credibility – alleged behaviour modification – whether Tribunal asked wrong question – Tribunal's approach in accordance with applicant's claim Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Appellant S395/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 216 CLR 473 distinguished NABD of 2002 v Minister of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2005) 216 ALR 1 cited SBVC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL No SAD 247 of 2005 FINN J ADELAIDE 10 FEBRUARY 2006

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY SAD 247 OF 2005

BETWEEN: SBVC

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: FINN J

DATE OF ORDER: 10 FEBRUARY 2006

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the first 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 SAD 247 OF 2005

BETWEEN: SBVC

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: FINN J

DATE: 10 FEBRUARY 2006

PLACE: ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal raises a particularly narrow issue. It concerns the significance properly to be attributed to several sentences in one paragraph of the Tribunal's reasons in the context of those reasons as a whole. The question it is said these sentences raise, is whether they betray that the Tribunal asked itself the wrong question, i.e. whether the applicant could avoid persecution by taking reasonable steps to avoid it, rather than whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution if she returned to China. I am satisfied the Tribunal did not ask the wrong question.