SZOFB v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZOFB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2010] FMCA 487

MIGRATION – Review of decision of RRT – where applicant complains about interpretation but does not produce any evidence upon which his claims can be tested.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.91R(3)

SCAA v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCA 668
SZHVL v Ministerfor Immigration [2008] FCA 356
SZJZE v Ministerfor Immigration [2007] FCA 1653

Applicant: SZOFB

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 486 of 2010

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 30 June 2010

Date of Last Submission: 30 June 2010

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 30 June 2010

REPRESENTATION

For the 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 $2,300.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 486 of 2010

SZOFB

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of China.  He arrived in Australia on 7 September 2007, accompanying his son who was a student visa holder.  On 29 July 2009, he applied to the Department of Immigration & Citizenship for a protection (Class XA) visa.  On 13 October 2009, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa and, on 4 November 2009, the applicant applied for review of that decision from the Refugee Review Tribunal.

2. The ground upon which the applicant claimed he was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations was the Convention reason of religion.  The applicant stated that he was a Christian and that before he came to Australia, he took part in underground church activities in secret.  He said that in 2005 his missionary activities were checked out by the government authorities and the police, he was questioned and detained where he was ill-treated, violated and tortured, leaving him with medical problems due to electric shocks.  His wife is also a Christian.  She had also suffered.  She had also made an application for a protection visa in 2007. 

3. The Tribunal questioned the applicant about a number of matters upon which it had concerns; firstly, about the fact that notwithstanding his claims that he was a person of interest to the Chinese authorities, he had obtained a new passport in Australia in 2008. The applicant told that when he had gone to renew his passport he was questioned by the authorities at the consulate as to whether he had made a claim for a protection visa.  At that time he had not done so and told them that. He said that the consulate followed this up with a phone call. The Tribunal pointed out to him that this complaint had not appeared prior to the hearing.

4. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his accommodation in China during the period prior to him coming to Australia. The applicant gave a response which indicated that he…