Liu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[1999] FCA 969

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Liu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[1999] FCA 969

MIGRATION – application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – whether Tribunal erred in applying incorrect law to the facts by drawing inferences which were not rational and reasonable – whether Tribunal erred in not providing substantial justice by drawing inferences which were not rational and reasonable

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 420, 476(1)(e), 476(1)(g), 476(2)

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Epeabaka (1999) 160 ALR 543, followed
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 162 ALR 577, followed
Li v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 870, cited

JUN LIU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
NG1394 of 1998

GYLES J

SYDNEY
2 JULY 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG1394 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	JUN LIU Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent
JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER:	2 JULY 1999
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG1394 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	JUN LIU Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE:	2 JULY 1999
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant, Jun Liu, applied for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) dated 19 November 1998 affirming the decision of the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs not to grant a protection visa. 

2. The applicant, who is a citizen of the People's Republic of China, arrived in Australia on 22 January 1997.  On 4 February 1997 he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration & Multicultural Affairs under the Migration Act 1958 (“the Act”).  On 18 December 1997, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa and the application was thereafter made to the Tribunal. 

3. The criterion under the Convention which was relied upon by the applicant was that  owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of political opinion he was outside the country of his nationality and was unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.  That was based upon two matters which I will summarise shortly and broadly without purporting to set out the arguments in full.

4. The first was that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution because he had offended corrupt officials and might expect retribution.  The second was that he had a well-founded fear of persecution because he had been involved in organising a strike and sit-downs and other activities by workers which might be seen as anti-State.  The Tribunal rejected, on the facts, each of those claims by the applicant.

5. The Tribunal simply did not accept the…