SZIBP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1164

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIBP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1164 SZIBP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FMCA 404 affirmed Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 cited Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 422B SZIBP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 597 OF 2007

HEEREY J

3 AUGUST 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 597 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIBP

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: HEEREY J DATE OF ORDER: 3 AUGUST 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $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 597 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIBP

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: HEEREY J

DATE: 3 AUGUST 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court which dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse the appellant a protection visa. The nature of the appellant's visa application, the reasoning of the Tribunal and the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court are set out in the judgment of the Federal Magistrate, which is available on the internet: SZIBP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FMCA 404. 2 The appellant is a citizen of China. He arrived in Australia on 15 April 2001 on a student visa, valid until 15 March 2004. After the expiry of his visa he took no further steps to remain in Australia lawfully. On 22 June 2005 he was detained in immigration detention by the Department. Shortly after detention he applied for a protection visa. 3 The appellant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution in China because he was a Falun Gong practitioner. He claimed to have started practising Falun Gong two years prior to the ban in 1999. He claimed to have practised twice a week in a park. After the ban, his father paid a fine, and later a bribe to the Public Security Bureau so that the appellant would not be arrested. He continued to practise Falun Gong at the homes of members. He claimed in his protection visa application that "then things became really bad". His father organised a student visa for him and he went to Australia. He claimed that after he left China, the PSB came to his house and asked his father to write a confession which implicated the appellant's family in the escape of a Falun Gong member. The confession was then used to extort money from the appellant's family and restrictions were placed on his father's business. The appellant feared that he would be detained and threatened by the PSB on his return to China.