Zhang v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1682

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Zhang v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1682

ZAI JIE ZHANG V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS V 233 OF 2000

NORTH J 6 OCTOBER 2000 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 233 OF 2000

BETWEEN: ZAI JIE ZHANG

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: NORTH J

DATE OF ORDER: 6 OCTOBER 2000

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 233 OF 2000

BETWEEN: ZAI JIE ZHANG

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: NORTH J

DATE: 6 OCTOBER 2000

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION 1 This is an application by Zai Jie Zhang, the applicant, to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 15 March 2000. In that decision, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.

BACKGROUND and CLAIMS 2 The applicant, who is a citizen of the People's Republic of China, arrived in Australia on 24 June 1998. The Tribunal set out the claims and evidence in its decision. In light of the limited grounds of review argued, it is only necessary to give a brief outline of this part of the Tribunal's decision. 3 The applicant claimed that he and his family suffered during the Cultural Revolution on account of his parents' religion and status as landlords. His parents owned property and were Christian. 4 The major focus of his claims related to a claimed fear of persecution as a result of China's one-child policy and on account of his religious beliefs. The applicant and his wife had more than one child, contrary to the policy of the Chinese government. They were fined heavily after the birth of their second and third children. The applicant claimed that if he returned to China, he would face punishment and restriction of access to government services because he had openly opposed the one-child policy. He feared that he might even be jailed. It was submitted that the applicant's father had been detained as a result of the applicant violating the one-child policy. 5 The other major basis for the applicant's claimed fear of persecution was his membership of an underground church in China and the fact that he claimed the government restricted the operation of unregistered churches. The applicant claimed that he belonged to a church called the Church of Hope. He was not, however, able in the Tribunal hearing to recall the address in Australia of the church.