Case: SZMZH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FMCA 445
Outcome: affirmed
is an appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate, delivered on 8 May 2009 ( SZMZH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FMCA 445) , in which the Federal Magistrate dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ( the Tribunal ), which was made on 20 October 2008 and handed down on 6 November 2008. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant protection visas to the appellants. The appellants are husband and wife and are citizens of India. They arrived in Australia on 15 March 2008. On 17 April 2008, they lodged an Application for Protection Visas with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. A delegate of the first respondent refused the Application for Protection Visas on 30 June 2008. On 21 July 2008, the appellants applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. Before the Tribunal, the first appellant, who is the wife and to whom I shall hereafter refer as the appellant , claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution arising from her activities with the SEWA Bharat, the All India Federation of Self-Employed Women's Associations, for whom she had undertaken voluntary work in her home town. She claimed that she became known as an activist for women's rights after playing a role in the introduction of minimum wages into some factories in her local area. She claimed that she had participated in many strikes and protests against factory owners throughout 2007. She claimed that she had been approached by workers from the ATLAS Company to lead them for the purpose of "doing something for them," and, in response to this request, she organised meetings of local women with a view to arranging protests and strikes. She claimed that one of the women who attended the meetings informed the ATLAS Company of their plans and that, as a result, on 31 January 2008, as she was leaving her home to attend a rally, she was approached by a hired gang (called goondas) who threatened her and assaulted her by hitting her in the face. In her written materials, the appellant claimed that, as a result of this attack, she fainted and was hospitalised for nearly a month. She claimed that she feared for her life and left India for Australia with the assistance of her husband who was in Taiwan at the time. She claimed to fear harm in India from hired thugs as a result of her industrial and political activities on behalf of women workers, and also claimed that she could not relocate elsewhere in India. The Tribunal had serious reservations about the appellant's veracity and was not satisfied that the appellant was a witness of truth. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal referred to significant discrepancies in the appellant's evidence. Examples of these were her inconsistent statements as to the year in which the January attack took place; her differing accounts of how long she had been hospitalised after the January attack; and the unsatisfactory and inconsistent accounts of the extent to which she was involved in protests against factories and, in particular, against ATLAS Company. The Tribunal noted that the letters submitted by the appellant in support of her claims were general and vague and did not provide any significant or detailed information regarding her claims. In the end, the Tribunal rejected all of the appellant's core claims, including that she had ever been a member of SEWA Bharat, that she had become known as an activist for women's rights, that she had participated in protests, and that she had been attacked in the manner and in the circumstances alleged by her. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant would not experience serious harm should she return to India. Indeed, the Tribunal found that, having regard to independent country information, the appellant would be able to avail herself of adequate state protection were she to return to India. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the appellant could relocate elsewhere in India in order to avoid harm, should she so desire. The Tribunal concluded that, since the appellant's husband's only basis for seeking protection was to rely upon the appellant's claims, he too was not a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations.