SZIYO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1298

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIYO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1298

SZIYO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD1083 OF 2007

COLLIER J

21 AUGUST 2007

BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD1083 OF 2007

BETWEEN: SZIYO

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: COLLIER J

DATE OF ORDER: 21 AUGUST 2007

WHERE MADE: BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal be dismissed with costs. 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 NSD1083 OF 2007

BETWEEN: SZIYO

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: COLLIER J

DATE: 21 AUGUST 2007

PLACE: BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from a judgment of Lloyd-Jones FMof 24 May 2007: SZIYO v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 782. The application before the Federal Magistrate sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("Tribunal") signed on 4 May 2006 and handed down on 18 May 2006.

Background 2 The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China who arrived in Australia on 30 October 2005. On 14 December 2005 the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa with the then Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 7 February 2006. On 7 March 2006 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The applicant's claims are related to her underground Christian church activities. The applicant claimed that around early 2002 she began to participate in a small bible study group which belonged to a family church and in June 2002 she was baptised. After that time she actively participated in the religious gatherings and she became one of the main financial providers to the church. 4 In June 2003 the applicant claimed that the local government decided to occupy most of the farmland in the applicant's hometown area and that her father-in-law attended protests against that decision. On 10 September 2003 her father-in-law was detained by the Public Security Bureau (PSB) and later formally arrested. He was nearly 70 years of age but she claimed that he was still tortured and forced to confess to anti-government activities. On 12 December 2003 her father-in-law and four other farmers were sentenced and in February the next year, her father-in-law's judicial appeal was dismissed. The applicant and her husband were subject to questioning by the authorities and warned not to take further legal action. In March 2004 the applicant claimed that she petitioned the central government for her father-in-law and the farmers, and that she was subsequently arrested by the PSB and detained for 10 days. 5 After her father-in-law's release in September 2004, the applicant claimed she took him to her religious gatherings and he was baptised at the end of 2004. From January to February 2005, the applicant spent time with her father-in-law in his hometown and assisted him to organise a bible study group. The group started with ten farmers and increased to 50 people. The applicant claimed that she provided the group with propaganda materials from the family church. 6 The applicant claimed that from about June 2005, the local government sent staff from the official church to persuade the villagers of the father-in-law's village to join the official church. In August 2005 the PSB sent someone to find evidence against them. In October 2005, the PSB started interrogating villagers, including her father-in-law. The applicant was urged to leave the country. In late October 2005, the person who introduced the applicant to the family church was arrested. The applicant claimed she then departed China, but before she departed, police came to her home due to her friend's confession. She claimed that her father-in-law was rearrested. 7 The applicant provided documentary evidence to the Tribunal which included court documents indicating that the applicant's father-in-law's appeal was rejected.