NADH of 2001 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 991

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Nadh of 2001 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 991

APPLICANT Nadh OF 2001 & ORS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & indigenous Affairs N 1653 of 2001 WHITLAM J 9 AUGUST 2002 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1653 of 2001

BETWEEN: APPLICANT NADH of 2001

FIRST APPLICANT

APPLICANT NADI of 2001

SECOND APPLICANT

APPLICANT NADJ of 2001

THIRD APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WHITLAM J

DATE OF ORDER: 9 AUGUST 2002

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1653 of 2001

BETWEEN: APPLICANT NADH of 2001

FIRST APPLICANT

APPLICANT NADI of 2001

SECOND APPLICANT

APPLICANT NADJ of 2001

THIRD APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WHITLAM J

DATE: 9 AUGUST 2002

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction 1 This is an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") made on 4 December 2001 refusing to grant protection visas to the applicants. 2 The applicants are Chinese nationals. The first and second applicants are husband and wife. The third applicant is their son born on 7 May 1988. The applicants arrived in Australia on 4 July 1999. Their applications for protection visas were lodged on 12 August 1999. The first applicant claimed that he and his wife would be persecuted in China on account of their adherence to the Roman Catholic Church. 3 On 25 October 1999 a delegate of the respondent refused to grant protection visas to the applicants. He found that, whilst it "could not be fully ascertained whether the [first] applicant belonged to the underground church or to the CPA [Catholic Patriotic Association]-affiliated one", the first applicant could "practise his religion freely." Accordingly the delegate did not accept that the first applicant would be harmed for practising his religion in China and concluded that his fear of persecution was not well-founded. An application for review was made to the Tribunal, and the first applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 28 April 2000. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision on 21 February 2001. However, on 13 July 2001, by consent, the Tribunal's decision was set aside and the application for review was remitted to the Tribunal. 4 The Tribunal was reconstituted for the purposes of the review. The first and second applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 26 September 2001. Its decision, which is the subject of the present proceeding, was handed down on 4 December 2001.