SZHCW v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZHCW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2007] FMCA 151

MIGRATION − Review of RRT decision − where the Tribunal questioned the applicant about his religious beliefs − whether in doing so the Tribunal erred by taking on a role of arbiter of doctrine − whether the Tribunal’s conclusions were open to it upon the facts − whether the applicant received a copy of the court book of evidence − whether the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant materials and information before it − whether the decision of the Tribunal evidences bias.

Migration Act 1958

WALT v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCAFC 2
Re Minister for Immigration:  ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407
Minister for Immigration v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510
A165 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCA 877
Seyfarth v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 1713
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration [2003] 197 ALR 389
SZAGT v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 1595

Applicant: SZHCW

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number: SYG2594 of 2005

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 8 February 2007

Date of last submission: 8 February 2007

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 8 February 2007

REPRESENTATION

Applicant in Person

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr T. Reilly

Solicitors for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay the First Respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $5000.00.

3. The name of the First Respondent shall be changed to “Minister for Immigration and Citizenship”.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2594 of 2005

SZHCW

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China.  He arrived in Australia on 9 September 2004.  On 8 October 2004 he lodged an application for a protection (class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.  On 10 March 2005 the delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa and on 7 April 2005 the applicant applied for review of that decision.  The Tribunal wrote to the applicant offering him the opportunity of an interview which the applicant accepted.  The applicant attended before the Tribunal on 12 July 2005.  On 29 July 2005 the Tribunal determined to affirm the decision under review and handed that decision down on 18 August 2005. 

2. The applicant’s ground for claiming that he was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations under the Refugee Convention and Refugee Protocol was that he was liable to suffer religious persecution in his homeland as a result of him being a member of an underground Christian church. Full particulars of his grounds are contained in a statement found at [CB25]-[28].

3. In short he alleges that he came from a Christian family and in 1991 commenced worshipping in the underground church and being subject to religious…