Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZMHB v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1702
SZMHB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1263 of 2008
EDMONDS J
18 NOVEMBER 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1263 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMHB
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: EDMONDS J
DATE OF ORDER: 18 NOVEMBER 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs. 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 1263 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMHB
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: EDMONDS J
DATE: 18 NOVEMBER 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court, SZMHB v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2008] FMCA 1062, dismissing an application for constitutional writs under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act') in respect of a decision of the second respondent ('the Tribunal') made on 14 April 2008.
Background 2 The appellant is a citizen of China who arrived in Australia on 11 September 2007. 3 On 4 October 2007, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship ('the Department') received an application for a protection visa from the appellant. 4 The appellant claimed to fear persecution in China by reason of her religious beliefs. She claimed to be a Christian. As ultimately presented to the Tribunal, the appellant claimed to have started to believe in God in August 2004 after a successful exorcism in her village, and that while she had only attended church once, she regularly gathered with others at the house of another Christian believer in her village. The appellant claimed to have been detained overnight by Chinese authorities in 2005 after such a gathering. She also claimed to have attended a registered church in 1985 during the Christmas period and was also detained overnight. At the Tribunal hearing, the appellant also claimed to have read the bible in 1984. 5 The appellant claimed to have attended a Christian church in Sydney. At the Tribunal hearing, the appellant provided no corroborative evidence in relation to her practice of Christianity in Australia. However, after the hearing, the appellant forwarded by letter dated 18 March 2008, photographs to the Tribunal that purported to show her at a church in Sydney. 6 On 11 December 2007, a delegate of the first respondent ('the Minister') refused the application for a protection visa. 7 On 9 January 2008, the Tribunal received an application for review of the delegate's decision. On 27 February 2008, the appellant attended an oral hearing before the Tribunal. On 14 April 2008, the Tribunal made a decision affirming the decision of the delegate. An application for judicial review was filed in the Federal Magistrates Court on 19 May 2008. On 22 July 2008, the application was dismissed. 8 On 29 July 2008, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal in this Court.
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