SZISC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] FCA 134

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZISC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 134

SZISC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD1821 OF 2007

COLLIER J
22 FEBRUARY 2008
BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD1821 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZISC
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	COLLIER J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 FEBRUARY 2008
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD1821 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZISC
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	COLLIER J
DATE:	22 FEBRUARY 2008
PLACE:	BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal against the decision of Nicholls FM delivered 17 August 2007 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant.

   Background

2. The appellant is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, who arrived in Australia on 19 June 2004. On 4 November 2005 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (as it then was). A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 15 December 2005. On 16 January 2006 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision.

3. The decision of the first Tribunal signed on 27 February 2006 and handed down on 16 March 2006 was set aside by consent by the Federal Magistrates Court on 30 June 2006 and remitted to a second Tribunal, which is the subject of the present appeal.

4. The appellant claimed to have well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his Christian religion and imputed political opinion. The appellant claimed that in 2002 his uncle was sentenced to two years jail for having a church meeting in his home, and that he lost his job because authorities suspected him of illegal religious activities due to his relationship with his uncle. He claimed that in order to avoid persecution he paid a large sum of money to obtain a passport and tried to leave China. In 2004 police allegedly took documents from his house and he was tortured, beaten and interrogated about members of the church. As a result the appellant bribed authorities to allow him to leave China and he claimed that the police issued a warrant for his arrest in 2005.

   Proceedings before the Tribunal

5. On 31 July 2006 the Tribunal sent a letter to the appellant in accordance…