SZDKD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 498

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDKD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 498 SZDKD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 1782 OF 2004 STONE J 26 APRIL 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1782 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZDKD

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE OF ORDER: 26 APRIL 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs in the amount of $3,000. 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 NSD 1782 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZDKD

FIRST APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE: 26 APRIL 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from the judgment of a Federal Magistrate handed down on 11 November 2004 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('Tribunal') made on 24 February 2004 and handed down on 1 April 2004.

Background 2 The appellant is a citizen of India and arrived in Australia on 24 September 2003. On 20 October 2003, he lodged an application for a protection (class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. On 13 November 2003, a delegate of the respondent ('Delegate') refused to grant a protection visa to the appellant. 3 The appellant was born in Hyderabad and is an unmarried Muslim man. The appellant claimed in his protection visa application that he left India because of a persistent fear of death and persecution because of his religious and political background. The Federal Magistrate at [4] to [5] of his reasons set out the appellant's claims: '…The applicant claimed to be a Muslim and supporter of a political party known as the Manjlis Itheadul Muslimin ("MIM") party. The applicant claimed that the party was basically a Muslim-based party involved in social/welfare and that he worked as a student counsellor with the party in 1999. The applicant also claimed to have supported a political candidate, Mr Sajjad, in a local election. As a result of Mr Sajjad having won the election, the applicant claimed that he became the target of opposition parties and had been attacked and threatened by BJP/Hindu extremists many times. The applicant stated that Mr Sajjad was attacked and killed by opposition extremists in his home. The applicant subsequently left India claiming that the government did not provide adequate protection to the Muslim community in any part of the country.'