SZLJB v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1233

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLJB v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1233

SZLJB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 814 OF 2008

JACOBSON J

11 AUGUST 2008

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 814 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZLJB

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: JACOBSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 11 AUGUST 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. 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 814 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZLJB

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: JACOBSON J

DATE: 11 AUGUST 2008

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Introduction 1 This is an appeal from orders made by Orchiston FM dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 31 July 2007. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the appellant a protection visa. 2 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China who arrived in Australia on 28 February 2007. He applied for a protection visa in March 2007. A delegate decided to refuse to grant the visa on 12 April 2007 and the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the decision of the delegate. 3 The appellant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution on the Convention grounds of religion and membership of a particular social group by reason of his claim to have practised Falun Gong. The appellant claimed that he had practised Falun Gong in China since 1999. He said that he started practising Falun Gong at that time with his uncle who was a high-ranking Falun Gong practitioner. He said that he continued to practise Falun Gong after that date, that he was forced to do labouring as a result of his practice of Falun Gong and that he was fined and forced to attend re-education classes. Decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal 4 The Tribunal found that the appellant's lack of knowledge of the basic principles of Falun Gong raised strong concerns about his credibility. The Tribunal considered that a number of overseas trips taken by the appellant, which were followed by his return to China on several occasions from 2004 to 2006, showed that he had no subjective fear of persecution in China at those times. The appellant claimed before the Tribunal that he had visited Australia for a week in June 2006 and therefore had returned to China. He told the Tribunal that he had travelled to Australia to attend a Falun Gong meeting and that he had attended meetings in Campsie and in the Sydney CBD. 5 However, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim that he attended Falun Gong meetings in Sydney as he had claimed in his evidence. The substance of the Tribunal's reasons on this issue are to be found in the following passage from its reasons: The applicant gave vague and evasive answers when he was asked about his Falun Gong practice and connections in Australia. The Tribunal finds that he has not had any involvement with Falun Gong practitioners or the Falun Gong movement in Australia. This together with all factors discussed above leads the Tribunal to find that the applicant is not a Falun Gong practitioner, nor will he be perceived as such.