SZEDM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 699

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEDM v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 699

SZEDM V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 207 OF 2005

MADGWICK J
26 MAY 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 207 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	SZEDM APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	26 MAY 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed.

2.        The appellant pay the costs of the respondent, assessed in the amount of $3,000.

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	N 207 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	SZEDM APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	26 MAY 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MADGWICK J:

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court given by Federal Magistrate Lloyd-Jones on 17 February 2005.  His Honour was dealing with a purported application for review on an adverse decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’).

2. The application set out as the grounds simply that the appellant claimed to be a Falun Gong practitioner, that Falun Gong was a particular persecuted social group in China and that she faced the risk of being imprisoned if she returned to that country.

3. The appellant declined to make any oral submissions to the learned Federal Magistrate despite the latter’s encouragement of her to do so.  The circumstances of the way the matter proceeded before the Tribunal were no more encouraging.  The appellant ignored a letter from the Tribunal inviting her to attend a hearing and telling her that it was unable to make a favourable decision on the information in the papers that it had before it.

4. Without explanation the appellant did not appear before the Tribunal when the matter was scheduled for her to do so.  For reasons given, which were suggestive of some inconsistencies and which took an adverse view of the lack of detail furnished by the appellant, the Tribunal Member said that she was unable to be satisfied that the appellant had practised Falun Gong in China or Australia, that she was detained and physically mistreated for that reason in China or that she would practise Falun Gong if returned to China.  In the circumstances, the Tribunal Member said she could not be satisfied that there was a real chance that the appellant would be persecuted in the reasonably foreseeable future if returned to China. 

5. The learned Federal Magistrate could see no jurisdictional error in the decision of the Tribunal and neither can I.

6. The appeal must therefore be dismissed with costs, assessed in sum of $3,000.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:

Dated:            2 June 2005

Solicitor for the Appellant:	The appellant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Phillips Fox
Date of Hearing:	26 May 2005
Date of Judgment:	26 May 2005