Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZMOB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 140
SZMOB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1861 of 2008
COWDROY J
24 FEBRUARY 2009
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1861 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMOB
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE OF ORDER: 24 FEBRUARY 2009
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The Appellant pay the costs of the First Respondent in the amount of $2,100 pursuant to O 62 r 40C(4) of the Federal Court Rules. 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 1861 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMOB
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE: 24 FEBRUARY 2009
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant appeals from the decision of Federal Magistrate Cameron delivered on 11 November 2008 which dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') handed down on 26 June 2008. The Tribunal's decision 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.
BACKGROUND 2 The appellant was born on 28 January 1963 and is a citizen of the People's Republic of China ('the PRC'). He arrived in Australia on 15 December 2007. On 28 December 2007 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. A delegate of the Minister refused the application for a protection visa on 6 March 2008. On 2 April 2008 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 Before the Tribunal the appellant claimed to fear persecution in the PRC due to his practice of Falun Gong. He stated in his application for a visa that he began practising in 2000 to improve his health problems. However, at the Tribunal hearing he said he could not remember when he began practising. He stated that he practised secretly in his home town before leaving for Shandong in 2004 after the PSB (Public Safety Bureau) became aware of such practice. In the statement supporting his visa application the appellant claimed that he was detained by the police and tortured for two months because of his Falun Gong practice. However, at the Tribunal hearing he claimed that he was not detained by the authorities. The appellant also claimed that he was supervised by the police after his release and that the PSB came and visited his house on two occasions after he left for Shandong. He stated that he feared the government 'would give him trouble' in the PRC so he left for Australia.
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