SZIMT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 1486

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIMT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1486

SZIMT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & ANOR

NSD1278 OF 2006

EMMETT J
1 NOVEMBER 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD1278 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SZIMT
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 NOVEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the application.

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	NSD1278 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SZIMT
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

1 NOVEMBER 2006

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for leave to appeal from orders made on 13 June 2006 by Driver FM of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia.  On that day, the primary judge dismissed a proceeding on the basis that it showed no arguable case.

2. The applicant claims to be a citizen of the People’s Republic of China and arrived in Australia on 3 October 2005.  On 14 October 2005, she lodged an application for a protection (class XA) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). On 19 October 2005, a delegate of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (‘the Minister’), refused to grant a protection visa. On 8 November 2005, the applicant applied to the second respondent, the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) for review of that decision.

3. On 28 November 2005, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, informing her that it had considered all the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone.  The Tribunal invited the applicant to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues in relation to the decision of the review.  The applicant was invited to give oral evidence and present arguments before the Tribunal on 19 January 2006.  However, the applicant did not attend that hearing and the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision on the basis of the material available to it.

4. On 25 January 2006, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa. The Tribunal observed that the applicant had provided only a brief outline of her claims and provided no details of the nature or depth of her involvement in Falun Dafa or Falun Gong as she claimed was the source of her fear of persecution.  The Tribunal considered that without receiving further evidence from the applicant, it could not be satisfied that the Chinese authorities had been alerted by her activities in connection with Falun Gong, as she claimed. Driver FM observed in his reasons that the applicant asserted from the bar table that she had not received correspondence from the Minister’s solicitors and denied receipt of a letter from the Court informing her of the appointment of a panel advisor to provide her with pro bono legal advice. 

5. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal refers to grounds in her affidavit.  However, the affidavit that was filed in support of the application contains no grounds whatsoever.  When the matter was called on for hearing this morning there was no appearance by the applicant. The Court file indicates that communications were addressed to the applicant at her address for service although some communications have been returned undelivered. 

6. In the circumstances, the application should be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:        10 November 2006

No appearance for the applicant
Solicitor for the first respondent:	Phillips Fox
Date of Hearing:	1 November 2006
Date of Judgment:	1 November 2006