SZIXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 534

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 534 SZIXI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2186 OF 2006

SIOPIS J

21 FEBRUARY 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2186 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIXI

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: SIOPIS J DATE OF ORDER: 21 FEBRUARY 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The title of the first respondent is amended to "Minister for Immigration and Citizenship". 2. The Refugee Review Tribunal is joined as second respondent. 3. The appeal is dismissed. 4. The appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs, fixed in the sum of $2,500. 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 2186 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIXI

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: SIOPIS J

DATE: 21 FEBRUARY 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from the judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 17 October 2006, dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 5 April 2006 handed down on 27 April 2006. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of the delegate of the first respondent ("the Minister") not to grant a protection visa to the appellant. The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China. In his application to the delegate of the Minister, seeking a protection visa, the appellant claimed to have a well‑founded fear of persecution because he was a Falun Gong practitioner. 2 However, before the Tribunal the appellant resiled from this earlier claim, stating that his migration agent advised him to make false claims; and instead he asserted that he had a well‑founded fear of persecution on the grounds of the family planning policy in China. The appellant claimed that heavy fines were imposed on him as he had five children, and he had left China because he could not afford to pay these fines.