Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZEHX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1039
MIGRATION – no issue of principle SZEHX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 436 OF 2005 CONTI J 28 JULY 2005 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 601 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZEHX
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: CONTI J
DATE OF ORDER: 28 JULY 2005
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2 The appellant to pay the respondent's costs.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 601 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZEHX
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: CONTI J
DATE: 28 JULY 2005
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from the orders and reasons for judgment of Federal Magistrate Lloyd-Jones made and given on 1 April 2005, which dismissed the appellant's application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') handed down on 2 August 2004, and which affirmed an earlier decision of a delegate of the Minister dated 15 April 2004 refusing the appellant a protection (Class XA) visa. 2 The Tribunal accepted that the appellant was a citizen of the People's Republic of China. The appellant's claims are summarised at [5] – [6] of the Federal Magistrate's reasons for judgment (all references to 'CB' are to the Court Book): 'The applicant claimed to have experienced a terrible ordeal in China as a Falun Dafa practitioner. He referred to the banning of Falun Gong in 1999. The applicant claimed that on 20 July 2001 he and another practitioner went to "Tianjin government center" to distribute Dafa material, but someone "tempted by financial incentives" reported them (CB p.24). The applicant claimed they were then handcuffed and arrested in a public place where many people took turns beating them for over an hour. He claimed they were then hung up and repeatedly beaten until they lost consciousness. The applicant said they were then sent to the Tianjin Detention Centre for three months and immediately following this incident the applicant went to Shangdong Province to avoid persecution. Ten days later he stated that people from "the 610 Office" in Tianjin tracked him down and collaborated with the local police to monitor him. On 30 May 2003 the applicant claimed he was reported for practising Dafa exercises and arrested by people from "the 610 Office" and again put into the Tianjin Detention Centre for two months (CB p.24). In September 2003 the applicant claimed that he was brutally beaten by police at his home and his family were unable to stop them. He stated that three hours after the police had left his home he was caught when he went out and beaten at the side of the road (CB p.24). The applicant claimed he suffered many injuries and bled severely from the attack (CB p.25). The applicant claimed his family sent him to hospital and he recovered one month later (CB p.25). He claimed that if he still lived in "his city" that he would face further punishment from the government. The applicant stated that he sold all of his belongings to raise money to bribe a powerful government official to issue him with a passport and visa to Australia (CB p.25).'
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate