SZHID v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 128

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZHID v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 128

SZHID v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP NSD817 OF 2007

COLLIER J

21 FEBRUARY 2008

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

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD817 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZHID

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

Respondent

JUDGE: COLLIER J DATE OF ORDER: 21 FEBRUARY 2008

WHERE MADE: BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as the second respondent. 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 NSD817 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZHID

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

Respondent

JUDGE: COLLIER J

DATE: 21 FEBRUARY 2008

PLACE: BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against the decision of Nicholls FM delivered 19 April 2007 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant. 2 The appellant's notice of appeal does not nominate the Tribunal as a respondent. As is clear from the decision of the High Court in SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 215 ALR 16, the Tribunal should be joined as a respondent. Accordingly, I order that the Tribunal be joined as a respondent to these proceedings.

Background 3 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China who arrived in Australia on 12 December 2004. On 24 January 2005 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (as it was then known). A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 9 April 2005. On 3 May 2005 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 4 The appellant claimed to have well-founded fear of persecution on various bases, namely: · being Christian · being a member of the Free Christianity group · having been fined at a greater than usual amount for having a second child outside of the "one-child" policy in China · having his employer ask him to resign. 5 The appellant claimed to have come from a Christian family. He claimed that his grandfather and grandmother were both Christians who were persecuted during the Chinese Cultural Revolution for their religious beliefs. He claimed that he was born Christian, was baptised and attended church since childhood. He claimed that Christianity was divided into two sects in China, one group showed loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party whilst the other wanted "genuine" Christianity. He claimed that his father was a leader of the "Free Christianity group". He claimed his father was warned and targeted after he objected to the Communist control of local Christians. 6 The appellant claimed he was influenced by his father's faith in free Christianity. He claimed that in 2002 he wanted to build a new church and asked other Christians for donations. He claimed to have come to the adverse attention of the authorities, and that the authorities would come to his house and his workplace to question him. 7 The appellant claimed that his wife gave birth to a child outside of China's one-child policy on 1 April 2003, and that the birth was reported to the authorities. The appellant claimed his employer requested he should resign from his employment for that reason.