SZJUZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] HCASL 194

SZJUZ
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 194
S541/2007

1. The applicant is a national of the People's Republic of China.  He sought a protection visa after his arrival in Australia, but this was rejected by a delegate of the Minister. 

2. The applicant then sought review by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision.  In July 2006, the Federal Magistrates Court set that decision aside and the matter was returned to the Tribunal for rehearing.

3. The applicant's claim to fear persecution was based on his alleged activity in an underground Christian Church in China.  He contended that his parents had earlier been persecuted for their Christian beliefs and activities.  He asserted that he had been arrested and detained, placed on a black list and persistently questioned by authorities.

4. The second Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence lacked credibility.  It noted various evidentiary inconsistencies; the applicant's limited understanding of Christianity; and his inability to provide evidence about his activities.  It did not accept that he had ever been involved in an underground church and rejected his application.

5. In a second hearing by the Federal Magistrates Court (Turner FM), that court, in May 2007, found no jurisdictional error. It was unconvinced of complaints of denial of natural justice or apprehended bias. It also rejected arguments based on ss 424A(1) and 425 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). It refused relief by way of judicial review.

6. On appeal to the Federal Court of Australia (Cowdroy J), the decision of the Tribunal was upheld and the appeal dismissed, substantially for the lack of any demonstrated error on the part of the Federal Magistrate.

7. The applicant has now sought special leave to appeal to this Court.  Most of his arguments are devoted to factual assertions.  None of the material in the papers filed in support of the application suggests any error in the reasoning or conclusions of the courts below.  The application is dismissed.

8. Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.

   `

M. D. Kirby
24 April 2008 J. D. Heydon