Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZMEW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1817
SZMEW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1471 of 2008
MIDDLETON J
20 NOVEMBER 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1471 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMEW
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MIDDLETON J
DATE OF ORDER: 20 NOVEMBER 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed at $2,400.00. 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 1471 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMEW
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MIDDLETON J
DATE: 20 NOVEMBER 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 27 August 2008 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') of 1 April 2008. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant.
BACKGROUND 2 The appellant is a citizen of China who arrived in Australia on 2 September 2007. On 16 October 2007 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 15 November 2007. On 14 December 2007 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The appellant claimed that a colleague had been killed on a work site in Beijing in the course of his employment. The appellant claimed that he pressed the employer for a thorough investigation into the circumstances of his colleague's death. The appellant claimed that after this request for a thorough investigation he was unexpectedly arrested by the police and alleged to have incited an anti-government movement in order to destroy a key project for the 2008 Olympic Games and that he was detained for some three weeks. He claimed that during every interrogation he was mistreated and tortured. The appellant claimed that he signed a confession about his anti-government movement and promised to return to his hometown and not to pursue enquiries about the death of his colleague. 4 He further claimed that he could not forget his colleague's death and that in June 2007 (after he recovered from an illness) he returned to Beijing and drafted petitions against the Communist dictatorship. He returned to his home town in August 2007 and his wife obtained a visa for him and arranged for him to leave China with the assistance of a friend in the Public Security Bureau ('PSB'). The appellant also claimed that some ten days after he left China his friend was discovered by authorities in the People's Republic of China and arrested, and that the appellant has been targeted by the authorities, with his wife, family members and friends being questioned and his house searched.
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