SZLYM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1647

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLYM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1647

SZLYM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 1250 of 2008

STONE J

5 novemBER 2008

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1250 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZLYM

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: STONE J DATE OF ORDER: 5 NOVEMBER 2008

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. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1250 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZLYM

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE: 5 nOvemBER 2008

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant is a citizen of Thailand who arrived in Australia on 8 June 2007. On 19 July 2007 she filed an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Her application was refused in turn by a delegate of the first respondent and by the Refugee Review Tribunal. Federal Magistrate Cameron dismissed the application on 23 July 2008, which is the decision from which the appellant now appeals to this Court. 2 The facts put forward in support of the appellant's application for a protection visa and the other material relied on are sufficiently described in the judgment of the Federal Magistrate; SZLYM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FMCA 1091. It is not necessary for me to recount them. His Honour considered the Tribunal's reasons for decision in the light of the claims made by the appellant and concluded that they disclosed no jurisdictional error that would justify setting aside the Tribunal's decision. 3 The notice of appeal filed in this Court by the appellant on 11 August 2008 sets out four grounds of review. Those grounds are not particularised and, in summary, they amount to a request to this Court to reconsider the merits of the decision made by the Tribunal. I have reviewed the Tribunal's reasons, and am satisfied that the Tribunal considered in some detail all the claims made by the appellant. Ultimately, the appellant's difficulty is that the Tribunal did not believe the claims that she made. This conclusion was based on the internal inconsistencies in the account the appellant gave to the Tribunal, and did not rely on extraneous information put to the Tribunal concerning, among other things, the appellant's association with various people in Australia. The Tribunal said: The Tribunal does not consider that the applicant was a truthful or credible witness. There were many deficiencies in her evidence. The information provided in her written application was inconsistent with her oral evidence given at the hearing and with information provided in an interview with the Department. Her oral evidence also contained in internal inconsistencies that the applicant was not able to explain to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. 4 The Tribunal added: Because these inconsistencies are so extensive, and relate to basic details of her life in Thailand prior to her departure, the Tribunal finds itself unable to be satisfied that the applicant is telling the truth in relation to any of her claims. 5 The Tribunal put to the appellant the inconsistencies that it found in her account and, at the conclusion of the hearing, handed her a letter inviting her to comment on information that would be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review. The appellant was required to respond to that letter in writing by 18 December 2007. No response was received by the Tribunal by that date. 6 The Tribunal made its decision on 20 December 2007. It was entitled to do so and, in my view, the conclusion to which it came was justified on the basis of the evidence before it. In any event, there was no jurisdictional error made by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Federal Magistrate was correct to dismiss the application and for the same reasons this appeal must be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Stone.