SZIGV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIGV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 1571

MIGRATION – application for protection visa – refused – application for review to Refugee Review Tribunal proceeded in the absence of appellant – decision affirmed – appeal to Federal Magistrates Court – dismissed – whether jurisdictional error – insufficient information – no error

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 426A.

SZING v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1421, cited.

SZIGV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 1369 OF 2006

MARSHALL J
24 NOVEMBER 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1369 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZIGV
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 NOVEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

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

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 1369 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZIGV
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	24 NOVEMBER 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The appellant appeals from a judgment of Federal Magistrate Scarlett in which his Honour dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant.

2. The appellant is a citizen of the Republic of Korea, also known as South Korea.  She claimed that she feared persecution if returned to South Korea in the reasonably foreseeable future on account of her political opinion.  She claimed that she joined a newly formed trade union in May 1998 and was involved in demonstrations and protests in public areas.  Those events received widespread media coverage.  She and her boyfriend were beaten by police after a protest organised by the union in January 2000 in front of the Seoul City Council building.  She was detained after the protest for six days.  She claimed compensation from the government, without success.  She said her actions in seeking justice led to adverse attention from criminal gangs. She further claimed as follows:

   ·         after a death threat received in April 2002 she fled Seoul and went to live in Wonji City where her relatives found her a job;

   ·         after two years had elapsed she returned to Seoul to care for her sick mother;

   ·         in December 2004, she was assaulted by masked men and returned to Wonji City, where she continued to receive death threats;

   ·         in July 2005, she decided to leave South Korea as she considered…