SZLZG v Minister for Immigration
[2008] FMCA 669
•19 May 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZLZG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2008] FMCA 669 |
| MIGRATION – RRT decision – Chinese applicant claiming religious persecution – disbelieved by Tribunal – no arguable case – application dismissed at show‑cause hearing. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.44.12(1)(a) |
| Applicant: | SZLZG |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 343 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Smith FM |
| Hearing date: | 19 May 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 19 May 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Applicant in person |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Ms E Warner Knight |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed under Rule 44.12(1)(a) on the ground that it does not raise an arguable case for the relief claimed.
The applicant must pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $2,200.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 343 of 2008
| SZLZG |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)
The applicant came to Australia in June 2007 on a visitor’s visa, to visit her son who was studying in Australia. On 31 July 2007 she was assisted to make an application for protection visa against return to the People’s Republic of China. A covering submission claimed that she had been secretly worshipping as a member of “True Jesus Church in her village”, and that “from time to time the local government launches attacks on underground churches and church members”. It did not refer to any persecution of the applicant herself, but claimed that her husband had left home and lived in a different province “to avoid trouble”, and that there had been a delay in her obtaining her passport which she linked to her religious affiliations. The submission claimed that the applicant “now worships in the True Jesus Church situated” at an address in Parramatta.
No supporting evidence for these claims nor details of them were provided to the Department of Immigration. A delegate refused the application on 17 October 2007.
On appeal, the applicant attended a hearing of the Tribunal held on 9 January 2008. She was accompanied by her son, and by a person who had known her in her village before he came to Australia in 1998. The Tribunal sought more details from the applicant about her religious opinions, whether she and her family members had been persecuted, and how she had come to Australia. The Tribunal also took evidence from the son and the witness. According to its description of the hearing, it clearly drew its concerns to her attention in the course of the hearing.
In a decision handed down on 22 January 2008, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision. The Tribunal did not accept that any of the applicant’s claimed history of religious associations and persecution was true, and it formed an opinion that she had “invented these claims to assist her application for protection visa”.
In support of its conclusions, the Tribunal referred to the fact that the applicant had left China without difficulties using a passport issued by the passport office in her local area, and said that she could not give details of the difficulties she had encountered. It said that she could “tell the Tribunal very little about her religious beliefs when invited to do so”, and that she “could not give the Tribunal any specific details of harm or harassment that she or her husband suffered or feared”.
The Tribunal did not consider that the witnesses assisted her. Indeed, it thought that the son “also was able to tell the Tribunal little about the beliefs” of the Christian True Jesus Church, which he also claimed to have been a member of. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant had attended at such a church in Parramatta as a genuine member of the congregation. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well founded fear of persecution in China within the meaning of the Refugees Convention.
The applicant now asks the Court to set aside the Tribunal’s decision, and to remit the matter for further consideration. The application has been set down today to consider whether it raises an arguable case for the making of these orders. The applicant has been given an opportunity to file an amended application and evidence, after receiving a bundle of relevant documents and a referral for free legal advice. She has not, however, filed any further documents, but relies on her original application.
This contains the following three grounds:
1.I had been persecuted by Chinese authority. Because I involved the underground Christianity Church activities. However, the Tribunal didn’t believe me. In China many underground Church’s Christian were persecuted. Due to their religious belief.
2.The RRT’s decision cancelled my PV application. It was only wishful thinking, without any proper grounds and investigation.
3.I’m a citizen of China, if I go back to my country I will be risk of suffering persecution, within the meaning of the 1951 Convention relating to the status of Refugees as amended by the 1967.
In my opinion, the contentions made in Grounds 1 and 3 do no more than repeat the assertions of the applicant’s refugee claim. They do not identify any arguable ground of jurisdictional error affecting the Tribunal’s decision. According to the Tribunal’s discussion of the applicant’s evidence, its adverse conclusion was clearly open to it on the material before it, in particular its conclusion adverse to the applicant’s general credibility.
I am unable to give any arguable substance to Ground 2. I consider that the Tribunal’s reasons show that it has clearly attempted to make a genuine assessment of the applicant’s claims. It has investigated them at a hearing attended by the applicant, and in my opinion it is not reasonably arguable that there was a procedure which it has not followed which it should have followed.
The applicant today had no submission to make to me, when so invited.
In my opinion the application does not raise an arguable case for the relief claimed, and it is appropriate to dismiss the application under r.44.12(1)(a).
[POSTSCRIPT] After I delivered the above judgment, the applicant asked to read to me a submission which was written in Chinese on a piece of paper. I allowed her to do so. In effect, it only repeated her refugee claims. Her submissions did not persuade me to withdraw nor alter my judgment.
I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Smith FM
Associate: Lilian Khaw
Date: 23 May 2008
0
0
0