SZLFI v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLFI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2008] FMCA 122

MIGRATION – Review of RRT decision – where Tribunal did not accept that applicant was a Falun Gong practitioner – no point of principle.

Migration Act 1958, s.422B

SZDFO v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 1192

Applicant: SZLFI

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number: SYG 2580 of 2007

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 31 January 2008

Date of last submission: 31 January 2008

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 31 January 2008

REPRESENTATION

Applicant in person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay the First Respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $2,500.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2580 of 2007

SZLFI

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of China, who arrived in Australia on 19 February 2007 and applied to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for a protection (class XA) visa on 21 February 2007.  Her application was considered by a delegate of the Minister, who refused to grant her a protection visa on 24 March 2007.  On 26 April 2007, the applicant applied for a review of the delegate's decision from the Refugee Review Tribunal.  On 8 May 2007, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising her that it had considered the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone.  The Tribunal invited the applicant to a hearing on 28 June 2007, at which she could present evidence and call witnesses, if required.  The applicant attended before the Tribunal.  On 29 June 2007, the Tribunal determined to affirm the decision under review, and it handed that decision down on 19 July 2007.

2. The applicant had received a copy of the decision of the delegate [CB36‑39].  If she had read that document, she would have seen that one of the main reasons why the delegate did not grant her the visa she requested was the vagueness of her statement and the lack of detail in it.  The applicant had told her story [CB13] of being a Falun Gong practitioner and leader of the Falun Gong organisation in Shanghai and of being detained for three months in a Shanghai detention centre and tortured because of her practice of Falun Gong.  However, she had not given any dates or any description of the arrest and incarceration, nor had she given very much in the way of information concerning exactly what she did within the organisation so as to be considered a leader.  Armed with this document and with the letter from the Tribunal informing her that the written information alone was not sufficient, she might have been expected to attend the hearing and have been prepared at the hearing to provide the Tribunal with the sort of particulars that might make her story more…