SZKQM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 264

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZKQM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 264

SZKQM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2045 OF 2007

BRANSON J

6 MARCH 2008

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2045 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZKQM

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: BRANSON J DATE OF ORDER: 6 MARCH 2008

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 2045 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZKQM

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE: 6 MARCH 2008

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION 1 The appellant is a citizen of Thailand who arrived in Australian on 26 September 2006. She applied for a Class XA (Protection) visa on 8 November 2006 pursuant to s 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). 2 The appellant claimed to fear persecution in Thailand from Muslim men. On 18 November 2006 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant her a protection visa. The appellant sought review of that decision by the Refuge Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). 3 The appellant gave evidence before the Tribunal, assisted by an interpreter, on 1 March 2007. On 5 March 2007 the Tribunal wrote to the appellant in purported compliance with the requirements of s 424A of the Act. The letter drew attention to "information" that consisted of apparent inconsistencies between statements made in the appellant's protection visa application and her evidence before the Tribunal. The letter explained that the "information" could lead the Tribunal to make an adverse credibility finding. 4 On 2 April 2007 the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister. The Tribunal did not find the appellant to be a credible witness and concluded that the claims made by her concerning her experiences in Thailand were false. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant left Thailand because of a fear of persecution and it was not satisfied that she had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason should she return to Thailand. 5 The appellant sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision by the Federal Magistrates Court. On 26 September 2007 the Federal Magistrate found that the Tribunal's decision was not affected by jurisdictional error and accordingly dismissed the application.