SZMDJ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1837

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZMDJ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1837

SZMDJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 1541 of 2008

RYAN J

27 NOVEMBER 2008

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1541 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZMDJ

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: RYAN J

DATE OF ORDER: 27 NOVEMBER 2008

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs, to be taxed in default of agreement. 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 1541 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZMDJ

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: RYAN J

DATE: 27 NOVEMBER 2008

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from orders made by Smith FM on 8 September 2008, dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The learned Federal Magistrate dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Tribunal, which had been handed down on 18 March 2008. The learned Federal Magistrate's decision is reported under the name SZMDJ v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2008) FMCA 1298. By its decision, the Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship ("the Minister") to refuse to grant a protection (class XA) visa to the appellant. 2 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China. She arrived in Australia on 14 May 2006 with her son, who held a student visa. On 14 July 2007, the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. On 4 October 2007, a delegate of the Minister refused the application, and on 2 November 2007, the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 Before the Tribunal, the appellant claimed that in July 2004, a friend in her village, located in Fujian province, had introduced her to a doctor who was a devout Catholic and a member of the Roman Catholic Underground Church. She claimed that shortly thereafter she began attending gatherings at the Underground Church, and was baptised at Easter 2005. After this, she assisted her friend to organise a secret group gathering in her village, which grew to 20 members. After coming to Australia, the appellant claimed, she had actively participated in religious activities at two Catholic churches in Flemington and Lidcombe, and had started a bible study group. She also claimed that she had kept in contact with her friend and the doctor in her home village, and had sent religious material, as well as a large sum of money to help build a church there. 4 In May 2007, the Underground Church in the appellant's village was discovered by the Public Security Bureau. On her account, the appellant was informed that the doctor had been arrested, the appellant's home had been searched, and her husband had been interrogated. She also claimed that she had been identified as a participant in illegal religious activities, and had consequently developed a well-founded fear that, if she were to return to China, she would be persecuted by reason of her Christian faith, and her active involvement in the Roman Catholic Church. 5 The Tribunal noted in its reasons that in Fujian province, where the appellant had lived, there was a relatively tolerant attitude towards Christianity, which was practised widely. However, it found it unnecessary to pursue this issue further because, although the appellant had claimed to have attended church regularly, the Tribunal did not accept that she was either a Catholic, or a Christian. That was because of what the Tribunal regarded as her significant lack of awareness of Catholic doctrine and practices. Accordingly, the Tribunal did not accept that she had attended Catholic church services in either China or Australia. The Tribunal also found that the appellant's claim to have helped, from Australia, in setting up a church in China lacked detail and was implausible. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the appellant was not a credible witness and rejected all of her claims in relation to her application for a protection visa.