SZJRX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 153

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJRX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 153

SZJRX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2014 OF 2008

STONE J

20 FEBRUARY 2008

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2014 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZJRX

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE OF ORDER: 20 FEBRUARY 2008

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal fixed in the amount of $2,000.

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 2014 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZJRX

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE: 20 FEBRUARY 2008

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from orders made by a Federal Magistrate on 24 September 2007; [2007] FMCA 1745. His Honour dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, refusing the grant of a protection visa to the appellant, who is a citizen of the People's Republic of China. 2 The appellant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution mainly because of her involvement with the Falun Gong movement. She said that she became a Falun Gong member in 1997 and helped to develop Falun Gong branches in different cities in China. She claimed to have become very important in the movement and that, after it was banned in 1999, she attended demonstrations and lobbied the government in support of the movement. She claimed that in 2001 she was detained for 48 hours after attending a demonstration. 3 She also claimed that after witnessing the suppression of the demonstrators in Tiananmen Square she began to have "rebellious thoughts" about the government and said that people in China should be able to express their thoughts and that it was unfair that China was not democratic. 4 At a hearing before the Tribunal on 21 August 2006, the appellant modified her account. When pressed to provide more specific information about Falun Gong she was unable to do so. She then said that she was not, in fact, a practitioner but had "simply supported her friends' activities'. The Tribunal noted that when asked why the Chinese authorities would be interested in targeting her she said that they would not be interested in her but in her friends and classmates. She was also unable to give any satisfactory explanation of how she was able to leave China on a Chinese passport without difficulty. 5 Following the hearing the Tribunal sent the appellant a letter dated 23 August 2006 pursuant to s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act') inviting her to comment on information she had given. In that letter the Tribunal referred to the appellant's statement that in her dealings with the Chinese Consulate in Sydney she had not experienced any difficulties. The Tribunal commented that if she feared persecution it was "unusual" that the authorities would allow her to leave the country in the first place and that they showed no interest in her when she applied to renew her passport. The Tribunal also asked the appellant to expand on her evidence concerning her arrest at a demonstration.