SZIFS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Refugee Review Tribunal [2006] FCA 1574

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIFS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Refugee Review Tribunal [2006] FCA 1574

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s424A

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Another v Peko-Wallsend Limited and Others (1986) 162 CLR 24, cited Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SZFDE [2006] FCAFC 142, referred to SZIFS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1135 OF 2006

COWDROY J

30 NOVEMBER 2006

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1135 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIFS

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: COWDROY J

DATE OF ORDER: 30 NOVEMBER 2006

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent in the amount of $2500. 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 1135 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIFS

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: COWDROY J

DATE: 30 NOVEMBER 2006

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of Scarlett FM of 18 May 2006 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') made on 20 December 2005 and handed down on 17 January 2006. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ('the Minister') to refuse to grant a Protection Visa to the appellant. 2 The appellant, a citizen of the People's Republic of China ('PRC'), claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution because of her religious beliefs and because she was a member of an underground church. The appellant claimed that she had been a practising Christian and that someone had betrayed her religious group to the authorities. She claimed that she was detained for three to four days and was interrogated and that after her release, those remaining in detention were questioned about her. The appellant claimed that her workplace was notified of the investigations and of her detention and that it will now be difficult for her to obtain employment. She also claimed that there will be adverse consequences if the PRC government finds out about her application for protection in Australia. 3 The Tribunal invited the appellant to attend a hearing on 14 December 2005. The appellant attended and gave oral evidence with the assistance of an interpreter.