Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZIYZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1679
SZIYZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1385 OF 2007
COWDROY J
29 NOVEMBER 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1385 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZIYZ
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE OF ORDER: 29 NOVEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The Appellant pay the costs of the First Respondent in the sum of $3000 pursuant to Order 62 Rule 4(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth). 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 1385 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZIYZ
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE: 29 NOVEMBER 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant appeals from the decision of Lloyd-Jones FM dated 27 June 2007 which found there was no jurisdictional error in a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). The Tribunal had affirmed the decision of a delegate for the extant Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ('the Minister') to refuse the appellant's application for a protection visa.
BACKGROUND 2 The appellant, a citizen of the People's Republic of China ('the PRC'), arrived in Australia on 25 December 2005. On 30 December 2005 she applied to the extant Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ('the Department') for a protection visa. Such application was refused on 7 February 2006. 3 By Application for Review dated 10 March 2006 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of such decision.In a statement attached to her protection visa application and Application for Review, the appellant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution as a Falun Gong practitioner. She claimed that she was introduced to the practice by her husband and has been practising Falun Gong for six years. The appellant claimed to have received warnings from the local government and police many times, that she was forced to attend re-educational courses and was 'treated badly both physically and spiritually'. 4 The Tribunal acknowledged receipt of her application by letter dated 16 March 2006 which was posted to her mailing address. 5 By letter dated 24 March 2006 sent to her mailing address the Tribunal notified the appellant that a hearing would be held on Friday 21 April 2006 and provided details of the time and place for such hearing. A Response to Hearing Invitation form was enclosed. A request was made that such form be returned by 11 April 2006 with any written arguments. The Response to Hearing Invitation form was not returned and there was no evidence of return of the letter of invitation. Accordingly the Tribunal proceeded to deal with the appellant's application in her absence pursuant to s 426A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act') and on 4 May 2006 it sent a letter to the appellant informing her that the Tribunal's decision would be handed down on 25 May 2006. No response was received to such letter.
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