FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Chen v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 506

Hai Yan Wang v The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 505 applied

SUNARTO AKA MAO SHUN CHEN v THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

NO. VG 623 OF 1998

HEEREY J

19 APRIL 2000

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.         The application is dismissed.

2.         The applicant pay the respondent’s costs, including reserved costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     The applicant seeks review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“RRT”) affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa to him.

2                     The applicant is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) having been born in that country in 1960.  He arrived in Australia on 6 July 1997 on a false Indonesian passport with an Australian visitor visa.  He lodged an application for a protection visa on 5 September 1997.

3                     The applicant asserted a fear of persecution on the following grounds:

·          Religion

4                     He was a Christian and as a young man organised students to study the Bible.  For this he was detained for twenty-five days and made to write self criticism.  He fled China because he attempted to donate land to build a church and organise a demonstration against the refusal of a permit to build the church.

·          Political opinion

5                     He worked for a fertiliser factory in Fuqing as a foreman.  In June 1989 he led eighty to ninety senior high school students to another city, Fuzhau, to engage in demonstrations.  He managed to halt production at the factory for one month and as a result was dismissed from his employment when he returned to Fuqing.

·          Family background

6                     His father and grandfather before him were targets of discrimination and hatred because of their religion and political views. 

The RRT’s decision

7                     As to religion, the RRT considered the applicant’s answers in general “displayed a marked ignorance of even the most basic concepts of the religion he claimed to belong to, especially given his alleged long-standing and prominent involvement in the church”.  One example of this was the applicant’s initial affirmative answer to the question whether he had been baptised, but after questioning about how the rite had been conducted, he eventually declared he had not been baptised.  The RRT found that his claims were fabricated.  It did not accept that he belonged to the Catholic Church and as such was persecuted. 

8                     As to political opinion, the RRT thought there was nothing in the applicant’s description of his activities that support his having taken the role of leading students to Fuzhou for a demonstration.  He was working in Fuqing and had no stated contact with students or the student movement.  The RRT considered that inconsistencies in the applicant’s version of events indicated that he was not a credible witness.  Discrepancies included the applicant’s failure to state what he had earlier claimed, that is that he was detained for three months from the end of November 1989.  The RRT did not accept the applicant’s claims relating to his political activity and demonstrations in 1989.  There was no real chance therefore that the applicant would be persecuted for reason of his political opinion should he return to China.  But even if the RRT were to accept his claims in their totality, the RRT noted that the applicant had been punished and released and he did not report any further interest in him by the authorities.  The RRT said

“Country information available to the Tribunal indicates that many people were caught in security sweeps after the 4 June 1989 demonstrations but were released when it was determined that they were not key players. [Reference to DFAT cable 7 December 1990]  Even if the Applicant’s claims were accepted in toto it cannot be concluded that he was a key player.”

9                     As to family background, the RRT concluded that the applicant’s own history after the Cultural Revolution led to the conclusion that, whatever sanctions were imposed on the family, the issue had become irrelevant.  The RRT referred to the same publications as it had in the case of Hai Yan Wang [2000] FCA 505. 

10                  In conclusion, the RRT found that considering the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively there was not a real chance now or in the foreseeable future that he would be persecuted for any Convention reason if he returned to China.  Accordingly his fear of persecution for any Convention reason was not well-founded. 

The application for review

11                  The written contentions of fact and law filed on behalf of the applicant were, insofar as they advanced legal argument, in exactly the same terms as those in the case of Hai Yan Wang which was heard immediately before the present case.  Counsel said that the case was “on all fours” with Hai Yan Wang.  He did not seek to advance any separate argument.  Accordingly the conclusion on this application must be the same.

Orders

12                  The application is dismissed with costs, including reserved costs.

Associate:

Dated:              19 April 2000