SZDCC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a decision of Emmett FM dismissing an application for relief in relation to a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal that affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister not to grant a protection visa pursuant to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) to the appellant (SZDCC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FMCA 243). The grounds of appeal are as follows: 'The Federal Magistrates Court failed to refer to previous court case at Federal Magistrates Court and refused my application. My friend's case was returned to RRT for reconsideration with the same reason and same grounds.

According to advice from the China Section of DFAT on 20 October 2002, the experience of the Australian Consulate in Shanghai is as follows. Fujian province is likened to the "forgers capital" of China. Corruption is rife. There is a large trade in forged documents, so much so that forged documents appear more frequently than the genuine ones at the Consulate. To prepare false documents is therefore not difficult. Even seals can be arranged. Documents from this province are therefore always regarded suspiciously (DFAT, 21/10/92 CX643).' 7 Counsel for the respondent Minister accepts that the information in relation to forgery was part of the reason why the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review and therefore accepts that, prima facie, s 424A(1) of the Act was engaged. He accepts that no relevant notice was given to the appellant. It is submitted, however, that the information fell within the exception provided for by s 424A(3)(a). I accept the submission by counsel for the respondent Minister that the proper construction of that subsection has been settled by a series of Full Court decisions such that the information in question here is within that subsection and so not caught by the section (VHAP of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 82, (2004) 80 ALD 559; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v NAMW (2004) 140 FCR 572; WAJW v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 330; QAAC of 2004 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCAFC 92; and VJAF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 178). 8 The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the costs of the first respondent. I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (6 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (7)

Cited By (1)