NBML v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 283

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NBML v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 283 NBML v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2404 OF 2006

MARSHALL J

6 MARCH 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2404 OF 2006

BETWEEN: NBML

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MARSHALL J DATE OF ORDER: 6 MARCH 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The name of the first respondent be amended to read 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'. 2. The application for an extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal is dismissed. 3. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application. 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 2404 OF 2006

BETWEEN: NBML

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MARSHALL J

DATE: 6 MARCH 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant applies for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from a judgment of aFederal Magistrate. The application before the Federal Magistrate sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse to grant a protection visa to the applicant. 2 The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China who arrived in Australia in early 2005. Soon thereafter the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, as the department of the first respondent was known then. In his application for a protection visa, the applicant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of being a Falun Gong practitioner in China. The applicant claimed he advocated the practice of Falun Gong to his family and friends and that he was warned by the police to cease that practice. The applicant claimed that when the Chinese authorities banned Falun Gong, he was arrested 'under the name of anti-socialism' and sentenced to imprisonment for one year 'because I didn't listen and follow the policies of the Central Chinese Party'. The applicant claimed his family paid a bribe to release him from prison. 3 A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa. The applicant then applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising him that it had considered the material before it but was unable to make a decision in his favour on this information alone and inviting him to attend a hearing. The applicant did not reply to the hearing invitation and failed to attend the hearing on the scheduled time and date.