SZFYK v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2007] FCA 624

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFYK v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2007] FCA 624 SZFYK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2541 OF 2006

EDMONDS J

3 MAY 2007

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2541 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZFYK

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: EDMONDS J DATE OF ORDER: 3 MAY 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant 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 2541 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZFYK

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: EDMONDS J

DATE: 3 MAY 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction 1 This is an appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court (Turner FM) dismissing an application for review of a decision of the second respondent ('the Tribunal') affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent ('the Minister') to refuse the appellant a protection visa.

BACKGROUND 2 The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh. The appellant arrived in Australia on 11 February 2000 and lodged an application for a protection (class XA) visa on 22 March 2000. A delegate of the Minister refused the application for a protection visa. By application filed on 31 May 2000 the appellant sought review of that decision in the Tribunal. After conducting a hearing at which the appellant gave evidence, the Tribunal, on 25 July 2002, made a decision to affirm the delegate's decision not to grant the appellant a protection visa ('the first decision'). The appellant sought judicial review of the first decision. That application for judicial review was dismissed in the Federal Magistrates Court but the appellant successfully appealed to this Court. On 19 February 2004 this Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for determination according to law. 3 The Tribunal proceeded to re-determine the matter. The appellant attended a hearing before the Tribunal on 18 January 2005 ('the second hearing'). On 1 March 2005 the Tribunal handed down its decision toaffirm thedelegate's decision notto grant the appellant a protection visa ('the second decision'). The appellant sought judicial review of the second decision in the Federal Magistrates Court. The Federal Magistrates Court dismissed the application in a decision delivered on 15 December 2006. 4 In his application for a protection visa and before the Tribunal, the appellant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution based on his political opinion and activities as a member of the Jatiya Party in Bangladesh. The Tribunal, in the second decision, was not satisfied that the appellant had a well-founded fear of being persecuted for a Convention reason in Bangladesh. The Tribunal concluded: 'In light of the applicant's complete lack of knowledge about the party of which he claims to have been a member, and his lack of knowledge and glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence regarding his uncle (his claimed mentor and guide in his political career), the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applicant has been truthful about his involvement in the Jatiya Party and it cannot be satisfied that the applicant has ever been involved in political activities in Bangladesh.' 5 The appellant had provided a number of documents to the Tribunal in order to corroborate various claims that he made about his political activities in Bangladesh. The Tribunal did not attach any weight to the documents for the following reasons: 'The applicant submitted a number of documents in support of his application, but again, numerous inconsistencies and contradictions arose in relation to these documents to which the applicant gave no reasonable explanation, and bearing in mind the Tribunal's finding above about it's [sic] grave adverse credibility finding in relationship to his membership ofthe Jatiya party, and the independent evidence regarding document fraud in Bangladesh, the Tribunal cannot give any weight to the documents submitted by the applicant.'