Case: Applicant S301/2003 v the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCAFC 155
Outcome: cited
A failure to deal with or raise the matter in a protection visa application is not 'information': Applicant S301/2003 v the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCAFC 155 at [19] . The reference in the present case to non-provision of a statement when an applicant is specifically asked to do so, given the close relationship between the parties, can properly be treated as part of an appropriate reasoning process to reach the conclusion made in this case on her credibility. The absence of the corroboration is a fact and is not information. It has been used as a step in the reasoning process and not as information. The fact is that the request was not met. It was open on this material for the Tribunal to form the view that the appellant must have been aware of the fact that it was not provided. 15 Accordingly, the challenge made under s 424A must fail. It is thus not necessary to deal with the second ground of appeal, namely whether s 424A(3)(b) applies to information given by the husband. This issue raises a question as to whether the applications of the applicant and her husband should be treated as a joint application or as separate applications. There are different views in the Court on this aspect and, because it is not necessary for me to determine this question, I do not make any decision on this part. 16 The third ground of appeal relates to an asserted duty of the Tribunal to make inquiries under s 427. The reason why the Tribunal did not make inquiries in this case are set out in the reasons and I can see no error in them. The reasoning is to the effect that the husband had been specifically requested to provide information and a Statutory Declaration as to passports and visas, and yet for no apparent reason failed to do so, notwithstanding that he was aware of the request. The Tribunal could properly consider that before it made any investigation of its own it should be persuaded that the appellant had provided all relevant evidence at her disposal or at least explain why it is not provided. There is no general obligation on the Tribunal to make further inquiries and in my view the circumstances of this case were not such as to generate an obligation on the Tribunal to make further investigations in the absence of any indication that such enquiries would be futile. 17 On the state of the evidence before the Tribunal it was open to it to find that the husband was not prepared to corroborate the wife's case, and given that lack of co-operation, I can see no error in the Tribunal's reasoning to the effect that the visas were valid. I have not been referred to any appellable error in the reasons of the Federal Magistrate given the approach taken by the Tribunal on the findings open to it. 18 Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding eighteen (18) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin. Associate: Dated: 19 March 2007 Counsel for the Applicant: Darren Jenkins Solicitor for the Applicant: None Counsel for the First Respondent: Tim Reilly Solicitor for the First Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron Date of Hearing: 5 March 2007 Date of Judgment: 19 March 2007 AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2007/332.html