Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZGHP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1975
SZGHP AND SZGHQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1506 OF 2007
FLICK J
12 NOVEMBER 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1506 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZGHP
First Appellant
SZGHQ
Second Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: FLICK J
DATE OF ORDER: 12 NOVEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The Appeal is dismissed. 1. The Appellants pay the First Respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal. 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 1506 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZGHP
Appellant
SZGHQ
Second Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: FLICK J
DATE: 12 NOVEMBER 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court given on 12 July 2007. 2 The Appellants are unrepresented but have had the benefit of an interpreter for the purposes of this proceeding. 3 The Appellants raise two grounds of appeal in their Notice of Appeal:
1) The Tribunal failed to accept the applicants' claim that they had suffered persecution in China due to their Falun Gong practice. The applicants' claims were supported by substantial materials. The Tribunal found inconsistencies between these pieces of evidence and invited the applicants to comment on such inconsistencies. The applicants submitted a statement on 20 February 2007 explaining these inconsistencies. The Tribunal failed to take into account the applicants' explanation. By reaching such a finding, the Tribunal did not follow the rule that if the Tribunal makes an adverse finding in relation to a material claim made by the applicant, but is unable to make that finding with confidence, it must proceed to assess the claim on the basis that the claim might possibly be true. (See MIMA v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220).
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