SZFXT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 242

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFXT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 242 SZFXT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1812 OF 2006

CONTI J

1 MARCH 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1812 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZFXT

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: CONTI J DATE OF ORDER: 26 FEBRUARY 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal. 3. The name of the first respondent be amended to 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'. 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 1812 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZFXT

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: CONTI J

DATE: 1 MARCH 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against the judgment of Federal Magistrate Raphaeldelivered 30 August 2006 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') handed down 17 February 2005. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant. 2 The appellant, who is a citizen of the People's Republic of China, arrived in Australia on 22 August 2004. On 6 September 2004 she lodged an application for a protection (class XA) visa. She claimed to be a person to whom protection obligations were owed because she was a Falun Gong practitioner and feared persecution by the authorities in China. The appellant further claimed that she had been detained and mistreated after printing and distributing certain Falun Gong material. On 17 September 2004 a delegate of the Minister refused the application for a protection visa. 3 By application filed on 20 October 2004, the appellant sought review of that decision by the Tribunal. The appellant appeared at a hearing before the Tribunal on 21 December 2004 and gave oral evidence to the Tribunal in support of her claims. The Tribunal asked the appellant a series of questions about her Falun Gong beliefs and practices and her activities in China, and also in Singapore where the appellant lived before coming to Australia. 4 As foreshadowed, on 17 February 2005 the Tribunal handed down its decision by way of confirmation of the delegate's decision not to grant the appellant a protection visa. The Tribunal found that the appellant was not a credible or reliable witness, and further that aspects of her evidence wereinconsistent. The Tribunal's conclusions were summarised essentially in the following passage: 'In light of the applicant's limited knowledge of Falun Gong, the adverse credibility finding and on the basis of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal rejects the applicant's claim that she is a Falun Gong practitioner or that she was ever a Falun Gong practitioner in China. The Tribunal furthermore, rejects her claim that she printed and distributed material for Falun Gong in China and that she was detained and mistreated for that reason. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has fabricated this claim to support a protection visa application. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that she is at risk of harm because of her involvement with Falun Gong in China or because she distributed printed material in support of Falun Gong or its detained leaders. Given this finding, it follows that the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has ever been detained or persecuted by the Chinese authorities for reasons of her practise of Falun Gong.'