SZDGK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 186

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDGK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 186 SZDGK AND SZDGL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1579 OF 2006

SIOPIS J

23 february 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1579 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZDGK

First Appellant

SZDGL

Second Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: SIOPIS J DATE OF ORDER: 23 February 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The name of the first respondent be amended to 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'. 2. The appeal is dismissed. 3. The appellant is to pay the first respondent's 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 1579 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZDGK

First Appellant

SZDGL

Second Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: SIOPIS J

DATE: 23 FEBRUARY 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 9 August 2006 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') of 2 March 2004 which was delivered on 23 March 2004. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellants. 2 The appellants are Latvian citizens who arrived in Australia on 25 October 2002 on a single travel visa, and applied for protection visas six days later. The second appellant is the husband of the first appellant and was included as a 'member of the family unit' in his wife's application. The first appellant's claim for the protection visa was set out in a statement prepared by a migration agent. The first appellant claimed that she feared that she would be persecuted on the grounds of an imputed political opinion if she were to return to Latvia. The first appellant claimed that she worked part‑time for a publishing house in Latvia collecting information for journalists and was involved in gathering evidence about the involvement of prominent politicians, including the Prime Minister of Latvia, in a paedophile scandal. The first appellant claimed that she interviewed victims involved in the scandal and that by May 2002 she had collected evidence comprising audio and video‑tapes and other documentary records. In May 2002, the police searched the first appellant's apartment on the pretext, she says, of carrying out investigations in relation to a case apparently pending against the first appellant's brother, and found and removed the materials the first appellant had collected on the paedophile investigation. 3 The first appellant also claimed that on return from a business trip to Italy she and her husband had been beaten by a group of people, and that her husband had recognised one of the attackers as being someone he had previously seen wearing a police uniform. Further, the first appellant said that in June 2002, the police came to the first appellant's place, produced a document saying that the police had in May 2002 found material relating to child pornography and said that they had to conduct another search. The appellants tried to explain that the documents were collected as part of the first appellant's job, but the 'person in charge' threatened the first appellant with the 'horrible consequences of her crime'. After the police left, the appellants believed that they were in grave danger of a fabricated case of 'possessing and distributing pornographic material' being made against the first appellant. The visa application concluded by stating that '…there is a chance that the [first appellant] will be persecuted if she returns to Latvia'. 4 The delegate of the first respondent rejected the first appellant's claim. He accepted that there had been a major scandal in Latvia involving allegations of paedophilia by senior politicians in Latvia. There was evidence that a parliamentary commission was established to investigate the scandal and that it had reported. The delegate also noted that many people in various parts of the media in Latvia had been involved in reporting and researching the claims of paedophilia. The delegate went on to say that he had been unable to find in the country information, any reports of 'state sanctioned persecutory treatment' of any media personnel on account of their reporting of the scandal. The delegate also found that there were several aspects of the first appellant's claim that were implausible.