SZIXM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 268

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIXM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 268 SZIXM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2170 OF 2006

CONTI J

27 FEBRUARY 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2170 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIXM

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: CONTI J DATE OF ORDER: 27 FEBRUARY 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as the second respondent. 2. The title of the first respondent be amended to 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'. 3. The appeal be dismissed. 4. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs assessed at $2,350. 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 2170 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIXM

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: CONTI J

DATE: 27 FEBRUARY 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background 1 This is an appeal against the judgment of Federal Magistrate Scarlett delivered on 17 October 2006 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') handed down on 11 June 2006. 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 is a citizen of the People's Republic of China ('the PRC') who arrived in Australia on 29 November 2005. On 6 January 2006, she lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. In her application the appellant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution because she was a Falun Gong practitioner and feared persecution by the authorities in the PRC. The appellant claimed that she was detained in 1999 following the banning of Falun Gong by the Chinese authorities. 3 The appellant was invited by letter dated 8 March 2006 to a Tribunal hearing scheduled for 10 April 2006. The Tribunal did not receive a response to the invitation and the appellant did not attend the hearing on 10 April 2006. The Tribunal proceeded to make its decision pursuant to s 426A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act').