SZMTK v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZMTK & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2009] FMCA 310

MIGRATION – RRT decision – Chinese applicant claiming fear of persecution for assisting the Shouters – Tribunal disbelieved significant claims of involvement with Shouters – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.422B(1), 424A, 424A(1), 424A(3)(ba)

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
MZXBQ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship (2008) 166 FCR 483
Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H (2001) 179 ALR 425
SZBEL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152
SZBYR v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship (2007) 235 ALR 609
SZICV v Minister for Immigration & Anor (No.3) [2009] FMCA 175
SZMCB v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2008] FMCA 951

First Applicant: SZMTK

Second Applicant: SZMTL

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2410 of 2008

Judgment of: Smith FM

Hearing date: 23 February 2009

Last date for submissions: 6 April 2009

Date of last submission: 14 April 2009

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 28 April 2009

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicants: First Applicant in person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr P Silver

Solicitors for the Respondents: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed. 

2. The applicants must pay the first respondent’s costs in the amount of $5,865.00. 

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2410 of 2008

SZMTK

First Applicant

SZMTL

Second Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicants are a husband and wife who arrived in Australia in December 2007 on visitor’s visas.  On 30 January 2008, they applied for protection visas, assisted by a migration agent.  Only the husband made claims to be a refugee, and I shall refer to him as “the applicant”. 

2. In a statement attached to the application, the applicant said that he was not a Christian, but had been impressed by Mr Z who came from a Christian family, and who had saved the applicant’s son from drowning. Mr Z was later imprisoned for 8 years for his involvement in “an underground Christian church called as the Local Church (a.k.a. ‘the Shouters’)”. During that period, the applicant secretly assisted Mr Z’s elderly mother. After his release in 2005, the applicant persuaded his factory to offer a job to Mr Z as a part‑time driver to “remote places”. The applicant also permitted him to use his “old property” in another province “for setting up the Local Church’s underground printing factory”, and gave him money to do this.  The applicant visited him several times during 2007, and arranged for another person to be employed at his factory as a long‑distance driver as cover for delivering “religious promotion materials”. 

3. However, in September 2007 Ms W, an employee of the underground printing factory, was arrested by the PSB while delivering bibles.  On Mr Z’s advice the applicant then made arrangements…