SZJHM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 200

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJHM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 200

SZJHM AND ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR NSD2179 OF 2007

SACKVILLE J 3 MARCH 2008 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD2179 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZJHM

First Appellant

SZJHN

Second Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE : SACKVILLE J DATE OF ORDER: 3 MARCH 2008

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellants pay the costs of the first respondent. 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 NSD2179 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZJHM

First Appellant

SZJHN

Second Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGe: SACKVILLE J

DATE: 3 MARCH 2008

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court (Barnes FM) given on 15 October 2007, dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). On 13 July 2006, the Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent ('the Minister'), made on 30 March 2006, refusing the appellants' application for a protection visa.

Background 2 The appellants are husband and wife. Both are Indonesian citizens. They arrived in Australia on 29 December 2005 and lodged an application for a protection visa on 20 January 2006. Only the first appellant ('the husband') made specific claims under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees ('Convention'). The second appellant ('the wife') relied on her membership of the husband's family. 3 In the protection visa application, the appellants claimed to be Indonesians of Chinese descent, from Semrang. The husband stated that he had suffered 'massive trauma' due to the anti-Chinese riots of May 1998 in Jakarta. The husband claimed that he was tortured by rioters and that his shop was burnt to the ground. He further claimed that his community's place of worship had been bombed. He and his wife had been unable to cope with their daily activities and had conducted their business in fear. 4 The husband also submitted that the 'moral bankruptcy' of both the Suharto and post-Suharto regimes made it unsafe for him to live in Indonesia. 5 At hearing, the husband made additional claims. He stated that he had been beaten by a mob in May 1998 after he had been involved in a road accident in which a Muslim Indonesian was injured. No police attended the incident and he claimed to have been attacked due to his Chinese ethnicity. 6 The husband also claimed that he and his brother had conducted a business renting Play Station Consoles from 2003, but were forced to close it in 2005 due to demands for protection money. The husband stated that there was no point in seeking police protection. Moreover, someone had falsely reported the business as a gambling operation and he and his brother had been required to pay money to the police. The husband also claimed that while he worked as a salesperson for a paint business, he found that many Muslim-owned businesses were unwilling to work with him because he was Chinese.