FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZHQJ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 841 SZHQJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 587 OF 2007 MADGWICK J 22 MAY 2007 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 587 OF 2007 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZHQJ Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: MADGWICK J DATE OF ORDER: 22 MAY 2007 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal assessed 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 587 OF 2007 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZHQJ Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: MADGWICK J DATE: 22 MAY 2007 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HIS HONOUR 1 This is an appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court and, in particular, a judgment of Scarlett FM declining an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") which was adverse to the appellant. 2 The appellant has been in Australia for nine years and one day and he apparently benefited from a lengthy delay in lawful notification of the original 1998 decision of the first respondent's delegate refusing his application for a protection visa. An earlier adverse decision of the Tribunal was, by consent, quashed by the Federal Magistrates Court last year. 3 The appellant claims to fear persecution for reason of his political opinion. He claimed to have been active in the democratic student movement and, subsequently, in organising a strike at his place of work. In relation to the subject decision of the Tribunal, the appellant was invited by the Tribunal to comment on various information, being inconsistencies between information that he had provided at various times. The appellant did not respond to this invitation and the Tribunal made its decision. It disbelieved the appellant and did not accept that he had a genuine fear of persecution or that there was any real chance of his being persecuted should he return to China. 4 In the Federal Magistrates Court there was no particular given of generalised assertions of jurisdictional error. His Honour nevertheless considered the decision and found that there was no jurisdictional error. 5 The appellant is unrepresented before me. His notice of appeal alleges generalised errors by his Honour. The appellant filed no written submissions but in oral submissions asked the Court to give a fair judgment and to understand that our Australian view of China might not be that of a person with long experience of life in that country. The latter consideration really goes to the merits of the Tribunal's decision, which are not for review here. 6 So far as I can see there is no appellable error in the judgment of the Court below. 7 The appeal will be dismissed with costs, assessed in the sum of $2,500. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick. Associate: Dated: 6 June 2007 Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 22 May 2007 Date of Judgment: 22 May 2007