FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZIPK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1180 SZIPK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1942 OF 2006 TAMBERLIN J 3 AUGUST 2007 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1942 OF 2006 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZIPK Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J DATE OF ORDER: 3 AUGUST 2007 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 1942 OF 2006 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZIPK Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J DATE: 3 AUGUST 2007 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Emmett dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal'), which in turn refused the grant of a protection visa to the appellant. The appellant's claim, as originally formulated, was that if returned to India, he would be persecuted by persons holding Muslim beliefs because he had converted to Catholicism. 2 The decision of the Tribunal addressed as the crucial question whether the appellant could be believed on the assertion, which was fundamental to his case, that he had converted from the Muslim faith to Christianity or, as was more specifically stated before the Tribunal, to the Catholic faith. Accordingly, the reasons of the Tribunal indicate that questions were asked by the Tribunal of the appellant as to his knowledge of the Catholic religion. The appellant, in the view of the Tribunal, was unable to establish any significant knowledge of Catholicism, notwithstanding the assertions of conversion and attendance at church. 3 While it is true that some of this lack of credibility and evidence is explained by the fact that the appellant's knowledge of English is inadequate, nevertheless the two matters which the appellant identified as underpinning his understanding of Catholicism, namely that Mary was the mother of Jesus and that Catholicism involves the forgiveness of sins, were held to be extremely limited. Minds may differ on the question as to whether these two matters amount to a strong indicator as to the possession of Catholic beliefs, but, in my view, it was open to the Tribunal to conclude that they did not, in this case, constitute a sufficient knowledge of the Catholic faith. I note that a further question was asked by the Tribunal concerning who was the head of the Catholic faith, but I do not think anything of significance can be drawn from the fact that the appellant may not have understood this question fully or have known the answer. 4 Nevertheless, in all the circumstances, the basic fact is that it was open to the Tribunal to reach the conclusion it did. Although it might be said that the original claim concerned Christianity and the claim as made at the hearing was a particular form of Christianity, namely Catholicism, I do not think that there was any error or misunderstanding on the part of the Tribunal when it asked its questions of the appellant and gave its reasons for decision. This is because the principal issue was credibility, which was determined on the assertion that the appellant had converted to Catholicism. Accordingly there was no error by the Tribunal of the precise nature of the assertions particularised by the appellant at the hearing. 5 When the matter came on for hearing before me, the appellant made no submission in support of any of the grounds of the appeal. They were cast in very general terms. After being taken to the appeal book and to other relevant documents, I find that there was no substance in any of the grounds. Accordingly, this appeal should be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin. Associate: Dated: 8 August 2007 Counsel for the Appellant: None Solicitor for the Appellant: None Counsel for the Respondent: Mr G. Johnson Solicitor for the Respondent: DLA Phillips Fox Date of Hearing: 3 August 2007 Date of Judgment: 3 August 2007