Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZICM v Minister for Immigration Citizenship [2007] FCA 1094
SZICM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 775 OF 2007
COWDROY J
18 OCTOBER 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 775 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZICM
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J DATE OF ORDER: 18 OCTOBER 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as Second Respondent to these proceedings. 2. The appeal be dismissed. 3. Pursuant to Order 62 rule 4(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) the Appellant pay the costs of the First Respondent in the sum of $ 1800. 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 775 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZICM
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE: 18 OCTOBER 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Nicholls dated 16 April 2007 which dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') handed down on 15 December 2005. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the extant Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ('the Minister') to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant. 2 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China ('the PRC') who arrived in Australia on 27 April 2005. On 4 May 2005 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa which was refused on 6 August 2005. On 6 September 2005 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The applicant claimed that he feared persecution from authorities in the PRC because he had expressed concern about the treatment, at the hands of the authorities, of Catholics who had been detained because of their involvement in underground churches. The appellant, in his claimed capacity as a medical practitioner, says that he had provided medical certificates to persons indicating that they had been injured by police. The appellant claimed that such certificates were used in legal proceedings brought against the police and that he was consequently accused by the police of issuing false certificates. The appellant claims that he was persecuted by the police who came to his home and detained him in 2005 and that after the payment of bribes he was released four days later. 4 The Tribunal did not accept that there was a genuine basis for the appellant's claim that he feared harm from the police if he was to return to the PRC and found that the appellant's oral evidence regarding the fear of harm from police was hesitant, vague and ad hoc. The appellant was unable to provide relevant details as to the alleged court proceedings, including the outcome of the proceedings. The Tribunal found that the appellant was undecided as to whether he feared the police in general or whether his fear was limited to the police involved in the court matter. The Tribunal did not accept that the appellant was involved in issuing medical certificates to persons tortured by police which were then used in Court proceedings, nor that he would be harmed by police. Accordingly, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason if he were to return to the PRC. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant met the requirements of s 36(2) of the Act which provides the criteria for a protection visa, and was under no obligation to seek further independent information. The Tribunal affirmed the Minister's decision.
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