SZKEJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1899

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZKEJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1899 Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36(2), 424A, 424A(1), 425(1) SZKEJ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FMCA 838 affirmed SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 235 ALR 609 cited SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152 cited SZKEJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1013 OF 2007

GYLES J

7 december 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1013 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZKEJ

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: GYLES J

DATE OF ORDER: 7 december 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1 The appeal be dismissed. 2 The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent.

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 1013 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZKEJ

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: GYLES J

DATE: 7 december 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court (SZKEJ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FMCA 838) dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the second respondent, the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal), not to grant the appellant a protection visa pursuant to s 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). 2 The appellant, a citizen of Pakistan, arrived in Australia on 28 August 2004 and lodged an application for a protection visa on 5 October 2004. He claimed to fear persecution for political reasons because of his involvement with the Pakistan Muslim League of which he was the local Area President. 3 On 22 October 2004, a delegate of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, refused the application. The Tribunal affirmed that decision. An application to the Federal Magistrates Court resulted in orders by consent remitting the matter to the Tribunal. A differently constituted Tribunal heard further evidence from the appellant and again affirmed the decision to refuse a protection visa. 4 The essence of the Tribunal's decision was that, as a result of a number of inconsistencies between the evidence contained in his protection visa application, the evidence he supplied at the first Tribunal hearing and the evidence he supplied at the second Tribunal hearing, the appellant was not a credible witness. As a result, the Tribunal did not accept the appellant's claims to have suffered persecution in Pakistan, nor was it satisfied that he faced a real chance of persecution were he to return there. Accordingly, the Tribunal determined that the application did not satisfy the criterion for a protection visa. 5 The grounds of the application for review in the Federal Magistrates Court were as follows: "(1) The Tribunal relied on the previous RRT decision with much information without giving the applicant opportunity to comment upon the information given to the Tribunal before and during the interview which give rise to breach of s.424 of the Migration Act.