SZLUU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1282

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLUU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1282

SZLUU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 989 OF 2008

COWDROY J

21 AUGUST 2008

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 989 OF 2008

BETWEEN: SZLUU

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: COWDROY J

DATE OF ORDER: 21 AUGUST 2008

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal be dismissed. 2. The Applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent in the amount of $1,000 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 989 OF 2008

BETWEEN: SZLUU

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: COWDROY J

DATE: 21 AUGUST 2008

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant applies to this Court for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from the decision of Federal Magistrate Smith delivered on 2 June 2008 (see SZLUU v Minister for Immigration and Anor [2008] FMCA 770). The application before the Federal Magistrate sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') handed down on 22 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.

FACTS 2 The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China ('the PRC'). Before the Tribunal the applicant claimed to fear persecution in the PRC resulting from his political opinion. The applicant claimed to have been involved in a series of disputes relating to unpaid wages with his former employer, a project manager of a construction firm in the city of Dalian, Liaoning Province. The applicant claimed that a friend of his was beaten and killed by the project manager's bodyguards during one such dispute. 3 The applicant claimed that he contacted the Public Security Bureau ('the PSB') to investigate the death of his friend. However, the police sent by the PSB to investigate the matter were allegedly bribed by the project manager and as a consequence concluded that the applicant's friend had died in an industrial accident. 4 Despite allegedly being threatened and beaten by the project manager and his bodyguards, the applicant decided to pursue his friend's case. The applicant claimed that this led to his arrest and detention by the PSB on charges of inciting an 'anti-government movement'. He claimed that he was 'cruelly tortured' by the PSB for one month and was only released after his wife bribed both the PSB and the project manager. 5 After his release the applicant returned to Fuqing City, Fujian Province. The applicant claimed that he was blacklisted by potential employers because of his anti-government activity. 6 The applicant left the PRC to 'escape from persecution'. After the applicant left the PRC, he claimed that the PSB sent summonses addressed to him in both Dalian and Fuqing City. The applicant claimed that he feared that the PSB would arrest him if he returned to the PRC. 7 The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant's claims were truthful or that he was of any adverse interest to the authorities in the PRC. The Tribunal observed several inadequacies in the applicant's account in support of its conclusion. These included the applicant's initial failure to raise his fear of arrest in his protection visa application and his departure from the PRC using a legitimate passport. 8 In view of its adverse finding relating to the applicant's credibility the Tribunal rejected a subsidiary claim by the applicant that he feared persecution from criminals associated with the project manager. Although the applicant had produced what he claimed to be summonses issued by the PSB to the applicant, the Tribunal expressed concerns over their authenticity and ultimately rejected their relevance in light of its other findings. 9 The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 as amended by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees 1967. The Tribunal accordingly found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act') for a protection visa.