Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZLVQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 818
SZLVQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 437 of 2008
COWDROY J
2 June 2008
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 437 of 2008
BETWEEN: SZLVQ
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE OF ORDER: 2 JUNe 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed. 2. The Applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent in the amount of $1,300 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 437 of 2008
BETWEEN: SZLVQ
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE: 2 june 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant applies to this Court for leave to appeal from the interlocutory decision of Federal Magistrate Driver delivered on 10 March 2008. The application before the Federal Magistrate sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') handed down on 29 November 2007. The Tribunal had affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship ('the Minister') not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa ('the protection visa').
BACKGROUND 2 The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China ('the PRC') who arrived in Australia on 17 June 2007. On 11 July 2007 the applicant lodged an application for the protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. A delegate of the Minister refused the applicant's application on 22 August 2007. On 26 September 2007 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The applicant claimed to have well-founded fear of persecution resulting from her practice of Falun Gong. The applicant claimed that she began practising Falun Gong in 1997 because of her poor health. She claimed that once the PRC government prohibited the practice of Falun Gong in 1999 she began practising 'underground'. The applicant claimed that it was 'suspected' that she practised Falun Gong and she was consequently detained by the police for two days. She claimed that during such detention she was 'questioned and physically persecuted' then released because 'no obvious evidence was found'. 4 The applicant claimed that in March 2007 the police discovered that she had been leading a Falun Gong team in her district. She claimed that the police arrested her again. The applicant claimed that her husband bribed government officers to secure her release. She claimed that she applied for a 'visitor visa' and came to Australia seeking protection. She claimed that she has participated in Falun Gong activities since arriving in Australia.
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