SZHQJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2007] FCA 841

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZHQJ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 841

SZHQJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 587 OF 2007

MADGWICK J
22 MAY 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 587 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZHQJ
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 MAY 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal assessed in the sum of $2,500.

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 587 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZHQJ
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	22 MAY 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR

1. This is an appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court and, in particular, a judgment of Scarlett FM declining an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) which was adverse to the appellant. 

2. The appellant has been in Australia for nine years and one day and he apparently benefited from a lengthy delay in lawful notification of the original 1998 decision of the first respondent’s delegate refusing his application for a protection visa.  An earlier adverse decision of the Tribunal was, by consent, quashed by the Federal Magistrates Court last year.

3. The appellant claims to fear persecution for reason of his political opinion.  He claimed to have been active in the democratic student movement and, subsequently, in organising a strike at his place of work.  In relation to the subject decision of the Tribunal, the appellant was invited by the Tribunal to comment on various information, being inconsistencies between information that he had provided at various times.  The appellant did not respond to this invitation and the Tribunal made its decision.  It disbelieved the appellant and did not accept that he had a genuine fear of persecution or that there was any real chance of his being persecuted should he return to China.

4. In the Federal Magistrates Court there was no particular given of generalised assertions of jurisdictional error.  His Honour nevertheless considered the decision and found that there was no jurisdictional error. 

5. The appellant is unrepresented before me.  His notice of appeal alleges generalised errors by his Honour.  The appellant filed no written submissions but in oral submissions asked the Court to give a fair judgment and to understand that our Australian view of China might not be that of a person with long experience of life in that country.  The latter consideration really goes to the merits of the Tribunal’s decision, which are not for review here. 

6. So far as I can see there is no appellable error in the judgment of the Court below.

7. The appeal will be dismissed with costs, assessed in the sum of $2,500.

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

Associate:

Dated:       6 June 2007

Counsel for the Appellant:	The appellant appeared in person
Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	22 May 2007
Date of Judgment:	22 May 2007