SZJGS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 284

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJGS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 284 SZJGS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2457 OF 2006

MARSHALL J

6 MARCH 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2457 OF 2006

BETWEEN: SZJGS

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 leave to appeal is dismissed. 3. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application, fixed at $680. 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 2457 OF 2006

BETWEEN: SZJGS

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 applied for leave to appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate published on 4 December 2006. The application before the Federal Magistrate sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal 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 on 23 February 2006. On 20 March 2006, the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa with what is now known as the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. On 7 April 2006, a delegate of the then first respondent refused the application for a protection visa and on 9 May 2006 the Tribunal received the applicant's application for a review of that decision. On 30 May 2006, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that it had considered all 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 to be held on 30 June 2006. The applicant returned the Response to Hearing Invitation, indicating that he wished to attend the hearing. The applicant attended the hearing. He was assisted by an accredited interpreter. 3 Before the Tribunal, the applicant claimed to fear persecution because of his practice of Falun Gong in China. The applicant claimed that he joined Falun Gong as a result of his business associate being a Falun Gong practitioner and that he assisted his associate to become a leader of Falun Gong in his city. The applicant claimed he was stopped by police while carrying promotional material and subsequently detained for four days then released with the help of his business partner. The applicant claimed his business partner was arrested and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. The applicant claimed that he no longer practised Falun Gong and would be imprisoned because authorities would mistakenly impute him to be a Falun Gong practitioner because of previous involvement.