SZOWJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] HCASL 36

SZOWJ
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2012] HCASL 36
S388/2011

1. The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China ("the PRC").  She arrived in Australia with her husband in March 2007.  Her husband had been granted a Business (Long Stay) visa and the applicant entered Australia as his dependent.  In April 2010, she separated from her husband and he returned to the PRC.  Shortly thereafter the applicant applied for a protection visa.  She claimed to fear persecution in the PRC because of her involvement with Falun Gong. 

2. Her application was refused by a delegate of the Minister. 

3. The applicant applied for merits review of the delegate's decision before the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  Central to the applicant's claim was her account that she had given her sister materials relating to Falun Gong in the course of a visit to the PRC in December 2008.  She claimed that her sister had been arrested and had confessed under torture that the applicant was the source of supply of the materials.  The applicant maintained that a summons had been issued for her to attend on the police in connection with the matter.  She said she was very scared that she would be persecuted for distributing Falun Gong literature in the PRC. 

4. The Tribunal rejected the applicant as a witness of truth.  It considered that aspects of her account were implausible and noted that she had given inconsistent evidence of the circumstances of her sister's arrest.  The Tribunal did not accept that the sister had been detained or that a summons had been issued to the applicant.  The applicant's evidence about the nature and frequency of her practice of Falun Gong was found to be vague and inconsistent.  The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant is a Falun Gong practitioner.  It concluded that there is no real chance that the applicant will be persecuted for any Convention reason were she to return to the PRC.  It affirmed the delegate's decision. 

5. An application for judicial review was dismissed by the Federal Magistrates Court (Burnett FM). 

6. An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia (Katzmann J) was dismissed.

7. The applicant applies for special leave to appeal.  She makes unparticularised assertions that the Tribunal was biased against her and that it denied her procedural fairness.  Her Written Case does not elaborate on either ground.  Nothing in the materials filed in support of the application calls into question the correctness of the decision below.  If special leave to appeal were granted the appeal would have no prospects of success. 

8. The application is dismissed. 

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

J.D. Heydon
29 February 2012 V.M. Bell