Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZHJE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 904
SZHJE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD525 OF 2007
COLLIER J
13 JUNE 2007
BRISBANE (VIDEO TO SYDNEY) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD525 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZHJE
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COLLIER J
DATE OF ORDER: 13 JUNE 2007
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE (VIDEO TO SYDNEY)
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent to be taxed, if not otherwise agreed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD525 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZHJE
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COLLIER J
DATE: 13 JUNE 2007
PLACE: BRISBANE (VIDEO TO SYDNEY)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of Emmett FM of 14 March 2007 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 29 August 2005 and handed down on 20 September 2005. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant.
Background and the appellant's claim 2 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China ("PRC") who arrived in Australia on 13 February 2005. On 21 February 2005 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 9 March 2005. On 11 April 2005 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The appellant's claim is that he is a Falun Gong practitioner and faces persecution because of his practice. He states he was introduced to Falun Gong by a friend and that the practice of Falun Gong had cured health problems including rheumarthritis and headaches that he had developed from working in a factory in the PRC. He claimed that he has since introduced Falun Gong to other friends with whom he often meets and communicates regarding their practice. The appellant further claimed that after the ban in 1999 many Falun Gong practitioners were punished, with the appellant being detained in a detention centre where he was tortured and forced to give up Falun Gong. The appellant states that he signed a confession letter in order to protect his family. The appellant claimed that afterwards the police would frequently visit him at work and home, disturbing his life.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate