SZKEV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of Federal Magistrate Emmett given on 2 July 2007. Her Honour dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 14 December 2006 and published on 9 January 2007. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent of 8 September 2006, refusing the appellant a protection visa for which he had applied under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). 2 The appellant is a National of the People's Republic of China. He is 26 years old. After completing his schooling he worked as a driver for a public transportation company in the Shandong Province between 2000 and 2006. He obtained a visitor visa to come to Australia on 21 March 2006 and arrived in Australia on 25 June 2006. He travelled on a passport lawfully issued by the People's Republic of China. Shortly after his arrival he applied for the protection visa. 3 The appellant claimed to be entitled to a protection visa because he had a well founded fear of returning to China by reason of his practice of Falun Gong. What he claimed in his protection visa application is set out accurately in the Tribunal's reasons as: In a statement attached to the visa application the applicant stated that in China he worked as a driver for the Shandong Gong Jiao Company, which was a public transportation company. Through his job he met a senior member of Falun Gong, Mr Teng. After learning Falun Gong from Mr Teng for several months he became a member of Falun Gong and helped him to organise Falun Gong activities in Qingdao. He worked and lived according to the principles of 'Truth, Kindness and Tolerance'. He helped Mr Teng from 2001 to 2006 to deliver promotion leaflets for Falun Gong, arrange underground meetings and to transport members to underground meetings in Qingdao. In March 2006 the bus he was driving, with Falun Gong members on board, was stopped by the police and the persons were detained by the police. Evidence was found on the bus. He and others were kept at the police station for 'education classes'. They did not have proper food and were forced to sleep on the floor. The applicant had become weak. After 4 days his family managed to secure his release after paying bribes. As soon as he was released his parents helped him to apply for a visa for Australia so that he could travel to Australia and apply for protection. Since his arrival in Australia his parents have called him and stated that the police had been to his home several times asking about his whereabouts. He could not return to China because he would suffer persecution from the Chinese Government. 4 The Tribunal conducted a hearing on 31 October 2006 at which it asked the appellant extensively about the history of his involvement in Falun Gong and his knowledge of Falun Gong. In its conclusions the Tribunal referred to that material at some considerable length. In essence, the Tribunal did not accept that the appellant was a witness of truth and concluded that his evidence about his practice of and involvement in Falun Gong in China was not truthful. The Tribunal's reasons are explained briefly in the reasons of the Federal Magistrate at [20]: The Tribunal found that the applicant was not a credible witness and that his account of his involvement in Falun Gong in China was not truthful. Specifically, the Tribunal made the following findings: