FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZJVX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1231 SZJVX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP NSD 526 OF 2007 BRANSON J 1 AUGUST 2007 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 526 OF 2007 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZJVX Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP Respondent JUDGE: BRANSON J DATE OF ORDER: 1 AUGUST 2007 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs. 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 526 OF 2007 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZJVX Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP Respondent JUDGE: BRANSON J DATE: 1 AUGUST 2007 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant is a Chinese national who claims to fear persecution in the People's Republic of China because he is an adherent of the banned Falun Gong movement. 2 A delegate of the Minister refused to grant the appellant a protection visa. He was not satisfied that the appellant has a well-founded fear of persecution in the People's Republic of China. He noted that the appellant's claims were vague, lacking in specific detail and not supported by documentary evidence. The appellant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for review of the decision of the delegate. The Tribunal invited the appellant to attend a hearing and he did so. At that hearing the Tribunal explored the extent of the appellant's knowledge of Falun Gong and its practice. The Tribunal in its written reasons for decision recorded that it did not accept that the appellant has anything but a superficial knowledge of the Falun Gong movement. 3 The Tribunal was not satisfied that any of his claims were true. It noted additionally that the appellant has not shown any interest in practising Falun Gong during his time in Australia. He had not contacted the Falun Gong Association or any group that practises Falun Gong. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the appellant a protection visa. 4 The appellant applied to the Federal Magistrates Court for judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal. The learned Federal Magistrate noted that credibility is a matter within the jurisdictional province of the Tribunal. His Honour concluded that there was no arguable case that the decision of the Tribunal had been affected by jurisdictional error. The appellant has now appealed to this Court from the judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court. His grounds of appeal make no reference to the judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court. They repeat the grounds on which the appellant sought judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal including an applicant which I conclude was intended to be made before the Federal Magistrates Court that the Tribunal was biased against the appellant. 5 The appellant today has advanced no arguments in support of his claim that the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court is affected by error. Indeed, he has advanced no submissions at all in support of his notice of appeal despite my pressing him to tell the Court why it was that he lodged his notice of appeal. Nothing in the material before the Court provides any support for any suggestion that the Tribunal member was biased against the appellant. I conclude that in truth the appellant was seeking before the Magistrates Court and seeks here review on the merits of his claim to be entitled to a protection visa. Neither the Federal Magistrates Court nor this Court is entitled to review on the merits that claim. 6 No error has been shown to affect the judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court. Indeed, having regard to the reasons for decision of the Tribunal, the dismissal of the application made before the Federal Magistrates Court was inevitable. The appeal is dismissed. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Branson. Associate: Dated: 13 August 2007 Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A Cox Solicitor for the Respondent: DLA Phillips Fox Date of Hearing: 1 August 2007 Date of Judgment: 1 August 2007