MZWXS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2006] FCA 664

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZWXS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 664

MIGRATION – appeal – no error disclosed

MZWXS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

VID 1224 OF 2005

MARSHALL J
30 MAY 2006
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 1224 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MZWXS
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 MAY 2006

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal, fixed at $2 600.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 1224 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MZWXS
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	30 MAY 2006
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The appellant appeals from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate dismissing his application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The Tribunal found that the appellant did not face a real chance of persecution if he returned to China, in the reasonably foreseeable future.

2. The appellant claimed to be a Falun Gong adherent who was actively involved in a “protest demonstration” against the Chinese Government’s ban on Falun Gong.  He said that he had suffered physical harassment from Chinese security officers and feared that he would be sent to jail or a labour camp, without trial.  He also said that his wife, who remained in China, told him not to return, as policemen were looking for him.

3. The appellant claimed to have started practising Falun Gong in 1998.  He said that Chinese authorities detained him for 10 days in August 2001 and questioned him about Falun Gong.  He also said that Chinese officials treated him badly at this time.  He claimed that after his release from detention the authorities closed down one of two restaurants which he operated.  He said that he obtained a passport in Guangzhou by paying a large bribe.

4. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant had more than a rudimentary knowledge of the belief system of Falun Gong.  It was also held that he had no significant devotion to Falun Gong. 

5. The Tribunal found that the appellant has not been, and is not now, a practitioner of Falun Gong in any serious sense, or a committed participant in the Falun Gong movement.  It rejected his claim that, in China, he was publicly associated with Falun Gong, undertook activities on its behalf, was arrested, detained and harmed or had his restaurant closed down.

6. The learned Federal Magistrate was not satisfied that the Tribunal’s decision contained any jurisdictional error.  Before the Court below, the appellant who appeared for himself, relied on two grounds.  First, he submitted that the Tribunal took into account an irrelevant consideration.  Second, he contended that the Tribunal failed to take into account a relevant consideration.  Both grounds as stated and set out at [4] of the reasons below were illogical and unintelligible.  Admirably, his Honour attempted to re-state them in an intelligible way.  The primary judge rejected them.  Both alleged issues sought to quarrel with findings of fact made by the Tribunal and no useful point is achieved by developing them.

7. The appellant filed his notice of appeal on 5 October 2005.  By consent, the Court ordered that he file and serve an outline of his submissions on or before 23 December 2005.  He failed to file any submissions.  He did not appear before the Court on the hearing of the appeal.  His appeal grounds referred to the two issues raised before the Court below and others which were raised in his application below, but not developed before the primary judge.

8. I have carefully read the judgment below and the reasons of the Tribunal.  I am unable to discern any error in the reasoning of the Federal Magistrate or any judicially reviewable error in the reasoning of the Tribunal. 

9. The appeal is dismissed, with costs.  Costs are fixed at $2 600.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.

Associate:

Dated:            30 May 2006

The appellant did not appear.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms S Burchell
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	30 May 2006
Date of Judgment:	30 May 2006