FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZKFV v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 1766

SZKFV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 1682 OF 2007

MARSHALL J

21 NOVEMBER 2007

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.                  The appeal is dismissed.

2.         The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal fixed in the sum of $2,700.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     The appellant appeals from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court which dismissed his application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (Tribunal): see SZKFV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FMCA 1425. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Minister) that the appellant was not entitled to a protection visa.

2                     The Tribunal found that the appellant did not have a well founded fear of persecution if returned to China in the reasonably foreseeable future. The appellant claimed to fear persecution on account of his religion, the Shouters Christian Church, and on account of his anti-Chinese government political opinion.

3                     The Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant was a genuine Shouters practitioner or even a Christian. It noted that the appellant gave no details beyond mere assertion of his claim to fear persecution on account of his political opinion. It found that he had no valid claim, based on the Refugees Convention, to be considered as a refugee.

4                     Before the Court below the appellant alleged that he had been denied procedural fairness by the Tribunal. He alleged that the Tribunal breached s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act), amongst other non specific alleged grounds of judicial review.

5                     The learned Magistrate could not discern any judicially reviewable error in the reasons of the Tribunal. He held that the Tribunal had placed the appellant on notice of all relevant issues.

6                     In his notice of appeal, the appellant repeated his claims about a breach of s 424A of the Act without specifying the nature of the alleged breach. He also alleged, without particularisation, that the Tribunal did not consider his claims. His oral submissions did not take these grounds any further. The judgment below is free of error. The appeal must be dismissed and the appellant should pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Associate:

Dated:         21 November 2007