SZEGS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1385

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEGS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1385 SZEGS V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N398 OF 2005 BENNETT J 15 SEPTEMBER 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 398 OF 2005

BETWEEN: SZEGS

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 15 SEPTEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. that the appeal be dismissed 2. that the appellant pay the respondent's costs. 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 NSD 398 OF 2005

BETWEEN: SZEGS

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE: 15 SEPTEMBER 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China who claimed a fear of persecution on the basis of his religion, the Christian Shouters. In his application for review to the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') the appellant included a statement in which he claimed to be a key member of Shouters. He also said that some of the followers had been detained and were forced to disclose other followers names and asserted that he would be subject to persecution on his return to China. 2 The Tribunal sent a letter to the appellant inviting him to attend a hearing to give oral evidence in support of his claims. The Tribunal enclosed a form to be completed. The appellant indicated on the form that he did not wish to attend a hearing and that he consented to a decision being made without his doing so. The appellant returned the form to the Tribunal. 3 In its decision the Tribunal stated that it was unable to be satisfied that the appellant is a Christian Shouter. The Tribunal referred to the absence of supporting information to substantiate his claims. The Tribunal's decision and the matters referred to in it, mirror the matters asserted by the appellant in his application to the Tribunal.