SZKFG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1896

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZKFG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1896

SZKFG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1241 OF 2007

COWDROY J

29 NOVEMBER 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1241 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZKFG

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 $3800 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 1241 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZKFG

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 Federal Magistrate Turner dated 14 June 2007 in which his Honour affirmed the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') dated 9 January 2007. That decision upheld the decision of a delegate of the extant Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ('the Minister') to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa.

BACKGROUND 2 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China ('the PRC') who arrived in Australia on 26 April 2006. On 26 May 2006 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ('the Department'). The Minister refused the application for a protection visa on 18 August 2006. On 18 September 2006 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of such decision. 3 The appellant claimed that his sister had participated in the 1989 pro-democracy movement while the appellant was studying in Japan and that she asked him to collect newspaper articles in relation to the overseas response to the student's activities. The appellant claimed that his sister disappeared after the incident in Tiananmen Square, that his father was beaten and his parents were sent to the local police station and were ultimately forced to leave Beijing. The appellant claimed that when they arrived in Fuzhou his father was arrested and hospitalised in consequence of the beating he received from the police while in detention. 4 The appellant claimed that in 1990 he returned from Japan after learning of his father's ill health and was taken to the Public Security Bureau ('PSB') where he was subject to interrogation because he had been distributing anti-government propaganda. The appellant claimed that he was mistreated and forced to promise that he would not participate in anti-communist activities. Upon his release the appellant again departed for Japan where he remained for four years. The appellant claimed that he was questioned by the PSB on numerous occasions and threatened with punishment if he continued to participate in anti- government activities. The appellant claims that he distributed petitions and later a book relating to the 1989 movement which a friend had brought back from overseas. 5 The appellant claimed that in 2006 he distributed another book from overseas and members of the group were arrested. The appellant claimed that a friend in Japan assisted in arranging for him to be smuggled out of China at the behest of his mother and that since his departure from the PRC the PSB have attended his home to arrest him.