SZOVS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2011] HCASL 179

SZOVS
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2011] HCASL 179
S291/2011

1. The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China.  She entered Australia in August 2009 on a Student Guardian visa.  In February 2010 she applied for a protection visa.

2. The applicant claimed to fear persecution in China because of her religious belief.  She said that she had been arrested and detained as the result of her membership of an underground Catholic church.  She claimed to have secured her release by bribing the police and promising not to participate in activities associated with the Catholic Church. 

3. On 27 April 2010 the Minister's delegate refused the application.

4. The applicant sought merits review of the delegate's decision before the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  The Tribunal did not accept the applicant's claims.  It considered that her evidence was wanting in credibility.  It did not accept that the applicant was "a genuine Catholic".  In coming to that conclusion the Tribunal took into account the applicant's inability to recall the meaning of Christmas and her understanding that "Pope is God and the Pope is not alive now".  The applicant had not been able to give a satisfactory explanation for why she did not attend one of the many registered Catholic churches in China.  Her evidence in this respect was inconsistent with independent information concerning the existence of registered Catholic churches and the number of active Catholics in China.  The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision.

5. The applicant unsuccessfully sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision before the Federal Magistrates Court (Cameron FM).

6. Her appeal to the Federal Court (Bromberg J) was dismissed. 

7. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from the orders of the Federal Court.  Her first ground challenges the Tribunal's fact‑finding.  The second ground contains an unparticularised assertion that the Federal Magistrate failed to identify errors of law affecting the Tribunal's reasons.  It, too, is in substance a challenge to the Tribunal's fact-finding.  The third ground asserts that Bromberg J erred in dismissing her complaint that the Tribunal was biased against her.  Her claim of bias before the Federal Court and in her written case is unparticularised.  Bromberg J was right to reject it. 

8. If special leave to appeal were granted the appeal would have no prospects of success. 

9. The application is dismissed.

10. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. 

J.D. Heydon
26 October 2011 V.M. Bell