Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZJRT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 103
SZJRT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD1824 OF 2007
COLLIER J
19 FEBRUARY 2008
BRISBANE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD1824 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZJRT
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COLLIER J
DATE OF ORDER: 19 FEBRUARY 2008
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The name of the first respondent be amended to read "Minister for Immigration and Citizenship". 2. The 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 NSD1824 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZJRT
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COLLIER J
DATE: 19 FEBRUARY 2008
PLACE: BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of Federal Magistrate Smith of 23 August 2007 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the second respondent ("the Tribunal") handed down on 2 November 2006 (SZJRT v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 1584). The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent ("the Minister") to refuse the grant of a protection visa to the appellant.
Background 2 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China who arrived in Australia on 6 March 2006 and applied for a protection visa on 20 April 2006 with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Department") (as it was then known). Although the appellant entered Australia on a Korean passport, she claimed to be a Chinese citizen and submitted a copy of a Chinese identity card and a Chinese passport. 3 The appellant claimed to have well-founded fear of persecution for her practice of Falun Gong. The appellant claimed in her protection visa application to have practised since July 2003 and that on 14 May 2005 the Chinese authorities found she was a practitioner. She was called into the Public Security Bureau (PSB) office, warned, forced to write a confession, and fined. She was released on 24 May 2005. On 25 December 2005 a fellow practitioner was arrested and the appellant subsequently went into hiding. She claimed that since arriving in Australia she has practised Falun Gong and participated in other Falun Gong activities to expose the authorities' practises against Falun Gong. 4 The appellant sent to the Department various documents relating to her claims, including two alleged summonses and two warrants issued by the Public Security Bureau (PSB) for the appellant, a local government circular seeking assistance with the arrest of the appellant, and a statutory declaration by a fellow Falun Gong practitioner in Australia dated 21 April 2006.
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