Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZFWZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2007] FCA 263 SZFWZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1697 of 2006
EDMONDS J
21 FEBRUARY 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY nsd 1697 of 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZFWZ
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: EDMONDS J DATE OF ORDER: 21 FEBRUARY 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The name of the first respondent be amended to 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'. 2. The appeal be dismissed. 3. The appellant pay the first 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
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZFWZ
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: EDMONDS J
DATE: 21 FEBRUARY 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court (Federal Magistrate Raphael) given on 16 August 2006 dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'), affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent ('the Minister') refusing an application for a protection visa.
Background 2 The appellant is a citizen of the Peoples Republic of China. He arrived in Australia on 30 September 2004. The appellant lodged an application for a protection (Class XA) visa on a date that, according to the Minister's delegate, was 11 October 2004. After the Minister's delegate refused the appellant's protection visa on 1 November 2004, he applied on 1 December 2004 to the Tribunal to review that decision. 3 Before the Tribunal the appellant claimed to be a Falun Gong practitioner. He stated that he commenced practising in 1998 but that Falun Gong was outlawed in 1999. The appellant claimed that he demonstrated for Falun Gong in front of his home city's government building. In his protection visa application the appellant also claimed that in December 2002 several police broke into his house and took him to a labour camp. He claimed that whilst there he was tortured and abused. He gave details of his treatment which included: inadequate sleep, brainwashing for long periods of time, physical abuse, torture, being beaten by willow branches, his hands had swollen, being tied up and beaten and his head hit against a wall, his skull was fractured, his right eye was almost blind, he was thrown into a garbage can and cold water was used to wake him up. 4 The appellant also claimed that one million Yuan was used to build a 'transformation station' (to force Falun Gong members to renounce their faith) in the county from which he came, which was the Chongqing County. The appellant claimed that after he was released from the labour camp he sold his house, collected money from relatives and friends and through bribing a powerful government officer he was able to obtain a passport and visitor's visa to Australia.
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