Case: SZMBX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FMCA 1090
Outcome: cited
This is an appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate delivered on 16 July 2008 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") handed down on 28 February 2008: see SZMBX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FMCA 1090. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant. 2 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China who entered Australia on 12 June 2007. He entered on a visitor's visa. On 26 July 2007 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 for a protection visa on 23 October 2007. On 23 November 2007 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 In a Statutory Declaration filed in support of his visa application the appellant claimed that, encouraged by his friend, who was a member of the China Democracy Party ("CDP"), he organised a protest against corrupt Communist officials who sold a large piece of farm land which included his family's land, but gave the appellant's family only minimal compensation. He contacted other locals in the village and handed out pamphlets which called on local people not to bear unfair treatment and to strive for their basic human rights. He claimed that he organised a protest, which was attended by about 100 people. The protest was quickly suppressed by the Public Security Bureau ("PSB"). He claimed, that through his relationship with his friend, the PSB came to believe that he was a key member of the CDP and that he had been instructed by the CDP to organise the protest. He claimed that he was wanted by the PSB and therefore went into hiding before illegally leaving China with the help of some friends. He was smuggled to Taiwan and came to Australia on a false Taiwanese passport. 4 During the hearing the appellant said that, on 25 April 2007, he had conducted investigations about people whose land had been taken by the authorities by going to families and asking about any land taken. When he visited the families, he was finding out about the land as well as organising the demonstration. He set a date for the demonstration on 27 April 2007. On 26 April 2007, 5,000 copies of the pamphlet were printed and he gave pamphlets to anyone he encountered in the street. At the protest the police told him the protest was anti-government, and that the protestors were breaking the law. The police held him by his jacket. There were about 20-30 police officers and there were now 200-300 people involved in the demonstration which became chaotic. After he fled the demonstration he lived at a friend's home. Three police cars went to his home on 28 April 2007. 5 The Tribunal found, on the evidence as a whole, that the appellant was not a credible witness. The Tribunal considered that the Statutory Declaration completed by the appellant was detailed and comprehensive and that, therefore, new claims made at the hearing raised doubts about his credibility and the veracity of his claims. The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence about how he organised the protest to be internally inconsistent, vague and unclear. The Tribunal found the appellant's alleged organisation of a large protest was implausible and it did not accept that the protest took place.