Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZNDI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1447
SZNDI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 873 of 2009
MOORE J
9 DECEMBER 2009
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
general division NSD 873 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZNDI
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER: 9 DECEMBER 2009
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondents' costs fixed in the sum of $2979.00 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
gENERAL DIVISION NSD 873 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZNDI
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MOORE J
DATE: 9 december 2009
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 29 July 2009 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) handed down on 16 December 2008: SZNDI v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2009] FMCA 674. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse the appellant's application for a protection visa.
background 2 The appellant is a citizen of China who arrived in Australia on 6 June 2008. On 4 July 2008 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 on 30 August 2008. On 21 September 2008 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 Before the Tribunal, the appellant claimed to fear persecution in China for a Convention reason because of her practice of Falun Gong. She claimed that due to the Communist Party's cruel treatment of Falun Gong practitioners she had worked to encourage people to withdraw from the Party, including printing and distributing material supporting Falun Gong causes. She claimed that she gave Falun Gong materials to two senior members of the Communist Party and that they sent the material to the public security department of Shanghai Xin Yi Jinzhu Pharmaceutical Corporation which was her employer. As a result, she was sent a final warning by the security department. She claimed that had she been caught involving herself in Falun Gong activities again she would have been sent to gaol and tortured. She claimed that she was placed under strict surveillance, was threatened and brain-washed. 4 The appellant further claimed that she had participated in Falun Gong activities since her arrival in Australia. She claimed that a photograph of her at a meeting was published online and that if she was forced to return to China she would be sent to gaol and tortured to provide information about the Sydney Falun Gong organisation. She also claimed that she had telephoned her superiors at her former employer to announce that she had applied for a protection visa in Australia and to encourage them to join her.
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