SZMCZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1641

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZMCZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1641

SZMCZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 1326 of 2008

BESANKO J

7 NOVEMBER 2008

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1326 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZMCZ

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: BESANKO J

DATE OF ORDER: 7 NOVEMBER 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 to be taxed if not agreed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1326 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZMCZ

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: BESANKO J

DATE: 7 NOVEMBER 2008

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. That court considered an application by the appellant for constitutional writs in relation to a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). On 13 August 2008 the Federal Magistrates Court ordered that the application be dismissed.

The facts 2 The appellant is a national of the People's Republic of China ("China"), and she arrived in Australia on 8 September 2007. She applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 19 October 2007. A delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship refused her application on 7 December 2007. 3 The appellant claimed in her application for a protection visa that she came from Fujian Province in China and that she was once a leading member of a Christian church. She described the church as one of the underground churches established in China. She became interested in the church through a friend and, after a time, she began to attend the church on a regular basis. She then became very active in church activities and she, with another, set up a Bible study group and distributed what she called religious promotion materials. The Bible study group came to the attention of the authorities and the appellant was taken into custody and interrogated. She came to Australia to avoid further persecution by the authorities in China. Further details of the appellant's claims and various events are described in the Tribunal's reasons, but, in view of the issues on the appeal, it is not necessary for me to set them out. 4 On 24 December 2007 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate's decision. The Tribunal conducted a review and on 11 March 2008 it handed down its decision. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the appellant a protection visa. 5 On 7 April 2008 the appellant issued an application in the Federal Magistrates Court seeking constitutional writs in relation to the decision of the Tribunal. As I have said, on 13 August 2008 the Federal Magistrates Court made an order dismissing the application for constitutional writs. 6 In her appeal to this Court, the appellant raised two grounds. First, she contended that, contrary to s 91R(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), the Tribunal did not disregard conduct engaged in by her in Australia and that that was a jurisdictional error. Secondly, she contended that the Tribunal was biased and that, as a result, it did not consider her claims properly. Both these grounds were grounds of the appellant's application for constitutional writs and both were rejected by the federal magistrate. The appellant complains of the federal magistrate's decision to reject the two grounds.