Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZFCC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 312 SZFCC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2479 OF 2005 STONE J 28 MARCH 2006 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2479 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZFCC
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: STONE J
DATE OF ORDER: 28 MARCH 2006
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed with costs fixed in the amount of $3,000. 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 2479 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZFCC
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: STONE J
DATE: 28 MARCH 2006
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, claims to have practised and organised the promotion of Falun Gong since 1998. The appellant continued to practise Falun Gong privately even after the movement was banned by the Chinese Government. The appellant claims that at some stage after his return to China in 2003 from a period spent living in Egypt the Chinese police arrested him and his wife, and detained them for four days before releasing them for 'health reasons'. Upon their release the appellant claims he and his wife returned to Egypt, before deciding to seek protection in Australia. 2 The appellant and his wife arrived in Australia on 6 April 2004. On 20 May 2004 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa claiming to fear persecution upon his return to the People's Republic of China because of his involvement with Falun Gong. The appellant's application referred to his wife but indicated that she had made her own application and was not included in his application.
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