SZHYK v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZHYK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2007] FMCA 2039

MIGRATION – Application to review decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – no jurisdictional error.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss.422B, 424, 425, 425A, 426A

Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510
Dranichnikov v The Minister (2003) 197 ALR 389
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 6 FCR 155

Applicant: SZHYK

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number: SYG 3813 of 2005

Judgment of: Barnes FM

Hearing date: 27 November 2007

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 27 November 2007

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: In person

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Jowett

Solicitors for the Respondent: Blake Dawson

ORDERS

1. The title of the first respondent be amended to read "Minister for Immigration & Citizenship". 

2. The application be dismissed.

3. The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the sum of $2,500. 

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 3813 of 2005

SZHYK

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 15 November 2005 affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent not to grant the applicant a protection visa. 

2. The applicant, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, arrived in Australia in June 2005 and applied for a protection visa. He provided a statement in connection with his protection visa application and a further statement to the Tribunal dated 24 August 2005 after his application was refused by a delegate of the first respondent. He claimed in essence to fear persecution from the government of the People's Republic of China because he had protested against a lack of compensation in respect of the acquisition (or revocation) of his land and livelihood by the government. He claimed that he owned what he described as a piece of “pound” which he used to raise fish and which was his only main source of income. He also claimed that the government owned the land and recently had, as he put it, “ceased his pound” because they wanted to develop tourism on the land. He claimed that he was forced to undertake legal action against the government and also that he openly protested in front of a government office. 

3. The applicant claimed that he was given very little compensation by the government and that that compensation was subject to a system of unofficial tax. This was said to be evidence of the government abusing and exploiting its power. The applicant claimed that his protest actions were to draw the attention of the public, to indicate that the government was corrupt and that it abused its power. His success was said to be so great that it had sparked fear into the government and threatened its…