SZJUY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1118

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJUY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1118

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24(1A) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 91R, 424A Federal Magistrates Court Rules rule 44.12(1)(a) SZJUY v The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FMCA 497 SZJUY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 585 OF 2007

HEEREY J

1 AUGUST 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 585 OF 2007

BETWEEN: SZJUY

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: HEEREY J DATE OF ORDER: 1 AUGUST 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $1,600 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 585 OF 2007

BETWEEN: SZJUY

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: HEEREY J

DATE: 1 AUGUST 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court, SZJUY v The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FMCA 497. The Federal Magistrate dismissed the application for an order to show cause pursuant to rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules on the basis that it failed to disclose an arguable case for the relief claimed. The orders of the Federal Magistrate were discretionary under rule 44.12 and therefore interlocutory and the applicant requires leave to appeal under s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). 2 In the Federal Magistrates Court the applicant sought to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse him a protection visa. The details of the visa application, the Tribunal's decision and the reasons of the Federal Magistrate are more particularly set out in the Federal Magistrate's decision which is available on the Internet. 3 The basis for the applicant's claim was an alleged well-founded fear of persecution in China by reason of being a member of Falun Gong. He claimed that he became a member of Falun Gong in 1997 and promoted its work to his colleagues at a printing factory where he worked. He claimed that although Falun Gong was made illegal in 1999 he and his converts continued their activities, in particular printing leaflets promoting Falun Gong. He claimed that he attended a protest in Beijing where he was caught by the authorities and mistreated severely. He claimed that in 2005 he was caught at his factory printing illegal promotional leaflets and after paying a substantial sum to secure his release, he arranged to travel to Australia.