Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZLEU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 699
SZLEU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 211 of 2008
COWDROY J
19 MAY 2008
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 211 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLEU
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE OF ORDER: 19 MAY 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The Appellant pay the costs of the First Respondent in the amount of $1,700 pursuant to O 62 r 4(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules (Cth). 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 211 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLEU
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE: 19 MAY 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant appeals from the decision of Federal Magistrate Raphael delivered on 31 January 2008 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') handed down on 24 July 2007. The Tribunal's decision affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship ('the Minister') to refuse to grant the appellant a Protection (Class XA) visa ('the protection visa').
BACKGROUND 2 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China ('the PRC') who arrived in Australia on 12 April 2007 using a Class UC Temporary Business Entry subclass 456 visa ('the business visa'). On 7 May 2007 the appellant lodged an application for the protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. A delegate of the Minister refused the application for the protection visa on 22 May 2007. On 8 June 2007 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate's decision. 3 The appellant claims to have well-founded fear of persecution resulting from his religious beliefs. The appellant claims that he first attended the Sujiatun District Christian Church on 14 April 2002. The appellant claims that he became involved in spreading the Gospel but the police warned him against such activity. The appellant felt the public church was 'not the real home for Christians' and accordingly left the Sujiatun District Christian Church. The appellant claims he then began attending an underground house church ('the underground church'). 4 The appellant claims that in February 2003 the police raided a meeting of the underground church and those in attendance, including the appellant, were detained and beaten by the police. The appellant claims that he and another member of the underground church were sentenced to gaol for one year for 'attending illegal church gathering'. The appellant claims that he was released in March 2004 but was 'constantly harassed' by the police. The appellant claims that the police threatened him with further periods of incarceration should he attend any further illegal church gatherings. He claims that he escaped the PRC because 'there is no real religious freedom'.
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