SZHKK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2007] FCA 1264


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZHKK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor [2007] FCA 1264

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 91R, 424A

SZHKK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FMCA 842 affirmed

SZHKK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1050 OF 2007

HEEREY  J
17 AUGUST 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1050 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

SZHKK
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

HEEREY  J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 AUGUST 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs.

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

NSD 1050 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

SZHKK
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

HEEREY  J

DATE:

17 AUGUST 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an appeal from a decision of FM Smith who dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse the appellant a protection visa. 

  2. The nature of the appellant’s claims, the essence of the Tribunal’s reasoning and the reasons of the Magistrate are set out in the decision of the court below, which is available on the Internet: SZHHK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] FMCA 842. It is not necessary to repeat that material other than to say that the appellant’s claim was that he had a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of his Christianity. He claimed to be the leader of an underground church and that his home had been searched by authorities.

    The decision of the Federal Magistrate

  3. Before the Federal Magistrates Court the grounds of review were: first: the Tribunal failed to carry out its statutory duty; and secondly: the Tribunal had bias against the appellant and did not believe that he was a leader of an underground church in China or even a Christian.

    The appeal to the Federal Court

  4. On the appeal to this Court the appellant’s grounds were: first: the Tribunal had bias against him and failed to consider his application according to s 91R of the Migration Act1958 (Cth); secondly: the Tribunal failed to consider his application according to s 424A of the Act; thirdly: the Tribunal failed to notify him of the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision; and fourthly: the appellant was not given an opportunity to explain his case.

  5. At the appeal the appellant was not represented but was assisted by an interpreter.  The Minister filed written submissions by Ms Gazi, and the appellant, with the assistance of an interpreter, read those submissions.  When invited to address the Court in support of his appeal, the appellant said through the interpreter that he was a refugee in China, that he had been persecuted by the Chinese government and that he was seeking protection from the Australian government. 

  6. In my opinion the appeal has no substance. There is no evidence of bias apparent in the way the Tribunal considered the matter. It questioned him about his knowledge of the Christian religion, but this was an ordinary exercise of its fact finding function. There was no breach of s 424A. I find no error in the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court.

  7. The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice HEEREY.

Associate:

Dated:        17 August 2007

Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: L Gazi
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 17 August 2007
Date of Judgment: 17 August 2007
Details
AGLC
SZHKK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1264
Case
[2007] FCA 1264
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of SZHKK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the appellant, an individual claiming asylum based on religious persecution, challenged the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court. The appellant, who claimed to be a leader of an underground Christian church in China, alleged that the Tribunal had not properly considered his application and exhibited bias. The Federal Magistrates Court had already dismissed the appellant's claim, leading to an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the Tribunal had failed to adhere to statutory obligations, lacked impartiality, and did not provide adequate reasons for its decision. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship defended the Tribunal's decision, asserting that there was no evidence of bias or procedural errors.

The Federal Court examined the appellant's claims, focusing on whether the Tribunal had correctly exercised its fact-finding function and whether there was any bias or procedural missteps. The court considered the appellant's contention that the Tribunal had not properly assessed his claims of being a Christian leader in China and had not provided sufficient reasons for its decision. Additionally, the court reviewed whether the Tribunal had failed to consider the application according to the relevant sections of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

In its judgment, the Federal Court found that the Tribunal had not acted with bias or failed to consider the appellant's application appropriately. The court observed that the Tribunal had engaged in ordinary fact-finding processes, including questioning the appellant's knowledge of Christianity, which did not constitute bias. The court further held that there was no breach of statutory obligations and that the Tribunal had provided adequate reasons for its decision. Consequently, the court upheld the Federal Magistrates Court's decision, finding that the appeal lacked merit.

ORDERS:
1. The appeal be dismissed
2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed

2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

HEEREY J
The nature of the appellant’s claims, the essence of the Tribunal’s reasoning and the reasons of the Magistrate are set out in the decision of the court below, which is available on the Internet: SZHHK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] FMCA 842. It is not necessary to repeat that material other than to say that the appellant’s claim was that he had a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of his Christianity. He claimed to be the leader of an underground church and that his home had been searched by authorities.The decision of the Federal Magistrate Before the Federal Magistrates Court the grounds of review were: first: the Tribunal failed to carry out its statutory duty; and secondly: the Tribunal had bias against the appellant and did not believe that he was a leader of an underground church in China or even a Christian. The appeal to the Federal Court On the appeal to this Court the appellant’s grounds were: first: the Tribunal had bias against him and failed to consider his application according to s 91R of the Migration Act1958 (Cth); secondly: the Tribunal failed to consider his application according to s 424A of the Act; thirdly: the Tribunal failed to notify him of the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision; and fourthly: the appellant was not given an opportunity to explain his case. At the appeal the appellant was not represented but was assisted by an interpreter. The Minister filed written submissions by Ms Gazi, and the appellant, with the assistance of an interpreter, read those submissions. When invited to address the Court in support of his appeal, the appellant said through the interpreter that he was a refugee in China, that he had been persecuted by the Chinese government and that he was seeking protection from the Australian government. In my opinion the appeal has no substance. There is no evidence of bias apparent in the way the Tribunal considered the matter. It questioned him about his knowledge of the Christian religion, but this was an ordinary exercise of its fact finding function. There was no breach of s 424A. I find no error in the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court. The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: HEEREY J

Full text does not contain this section.