Case: SZGQK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FMCA 982
Outcome: cited
This is an appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate delivered on 2 July 2008 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") handed down on 18 October 2007: see SZGQK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FMCA 982. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship not to grant a protection visa to the appellant. 2 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China. The appellant entered Australia on 19 December 2004 on a Temporary Business Visa. On 24 January 2005 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, as it was then known. A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 23 February 2005. On 14 March 2005 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. On 17 May 2005 the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. The appellant appealed to the Federal Magistrates Court. On 13 February 2006 the Federal Magistrates Court dismissed the application. The appellant appealed to this Court. On 11 August 2006 Tamberlin J set aside the Tribunal's decision and remitted the matter to the Tribunal. On 24 November 2006 the Tribunal, differently constituted, affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the appellant a protection visa. On 31 May 2007 the Federal Magistrates Court ordered by consent that the Tribunal's decision be set aside and remitted the matter to the Tribunal. On 18 October 2007 the Tribunal, differently constituted, affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the appellant a protection visa. It is this decision of the Tribunal that is the subject of the present appeal. 3 The appellant claimed that he was suspected of being a Taiwanese spy because he worked as a welder for several Taiwanese firms in Fujian. He stated that he had established close contact with a number of Taiwanese individuals who held senior positions in these firms and remained in contact and received gifts from them. He claimed that he was dismissed from his job in 1999 because of these suspicions and he was unable to get another job until 2004. He claimed that he was interrogated by the Public Security Bureau in November 2004. He stated that his wife and parents were threatened by the local authorities because he was suspected of being a Taiwanese spy and his child has been denied family registration. 4 The appellant also claimed that a fisherman friend who visited Mazu Island and spoke to some Taiwanese people was sentenced to five years in jail and identified him (the appellant) as being a Taiwanese spy. He also stated that his hometown is very close to Taiwan and many young people living there sell material to the Taiwanese. The Chinese authorities are, therefore, more suspicious of him because of the proximity of where he lives to Taiwan. Finally he claimed that one of his Taiwanese friends had been in the Taiwanese army which made the Chinese authorities even more suspicious of him. 5 The Tribunal found that the appellant was not a truthful or credible witness. His claims were very general and lacked specific details. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant had access to special or privileged information that was not already available to the Taiwanese. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was unable to explain why the Chinese authorities would suspect him, as a welder, of having any information or knowledge that could be regarded as sensitive or confidential, or of any interest to the Taiwanese authorities.