SZMKF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 173

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZMKF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 173

SZMKF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 1870 of 2008

SIOPIS J

3 march 2009

perth

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1870 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZMKF

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: SIOPIS J

DATE OF ORDER: 3 march 2009

WHERE MADE: perth

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed. 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 1870 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZMKF

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: SIOPIS J

DATE: 3 march 2009

PLACE: perth

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant is a citizen of Latvia who arrived in Australia on 28 March 2007. On 11 December 2007, the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 18 February 2008. On 12 March 2008, the appellant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal for a review of that decision.

THE TRIBUNAL DECISION 2 The appellant claimed to fear persecution in Latvia arising from his son having applied for, and being granted, a protection visa by Australia. The appellant claimed that after his son obtained a protection visa in 2006, the appellant was subjected to a pattern of threatening conduct including telephone calls and arson and was detained by persons purporting to be police officers. He claimed that he was told that he and his family were "humiliating" Latvia and should be eliminated. According to the appellant, the local police were unable to act after he complained due to a lack of evidence of his alleged detention. 3 The Tribunal accepted the appellant's claims regarding the incidents of harassment and the inability of the local authorities to assist him. However, it found that the appellant had provided "very limited information" regarding the people who had harassed him, and that this was the probable cause of the failure of police to effectively react to his complaints. It was not satisfied that he was denied protection by the police in Latvia. The Tribunal stated at [44] of its reasons as follows: The Tribunal is satisfied, after considering information from external sources, in the US Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices ‑ 2007, released 11 March 2008, that the citizens of Latvia have access to a reasonable level of protection by the state. The Tribunal is satisfied that the [appellant] will have access to a reasonable level of state protection if he returns to Latvia. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the [appellant] does not have a well‑founded fear of persecution in Latvia for a Convention reason. 4 The Tribunal then went on to find that because the appellant was a citizen of Latvia, the appellant had "a legally enforceable right to enter and reside" in any of the European Union (EU) countries. However, the Tribunal said that the appellant had not taken all possible steps to avail himself of that right. The Tribunal also observed that countries of the EU provide high quality state protection to all citizens living in the EU. 5 The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the first respondent to refuse the appellant a protection visa.