Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZAQS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1413 SZAQS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N1001 OF 2004 EMMETT J 13 OCTOBER 2004 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1001 OF 2004
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZAQS
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER: 13 OCTOBER 2004
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: (1) The appeal be dismissed. (2) The appellant pay the respondent's costs in the sum of $3000. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1001 OF 2004
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZAQS
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: EMMETT J
DATE: 13 OCTOBER 2004
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant is a national of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia on 7 August 2001. On 22 August 2001, he lodged an application for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act'). On 30 October 2001, a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ('the Minister'), refused to grant a protection visa. On 28 November 2001, the appellant sought review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). The appellant attended a hearing before the Tribunal on 8 April 2003, where he was assisted with an interpreter in the Bengali language. 2 On the same day, the Tribunal decided to affirm the decision not to grant a protection visa. The Tribunal published its reason for that decision on 29 April 2003. On 22 May 2003 the appellant commenced a proceeding in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia seeking constitutional writ relief in respect of the Tribunal's decision. The grounds of the application were stated in bald terms without any particulars as follows: '1. The tribunal did not take into account the conviction base[d] persecution in Bangladesh.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate