SZCXJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 951

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCXJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 951

SZCXJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL &

INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 205 of 2005 LINDGREN J 6 JULY 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 205 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZCXJ

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: LINDGREN

DATE OF ORDER: 6 JULY 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. 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 0205 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZCXJ

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: LINDGREN

DATE: 6 JULY 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction 1 The appellant appeals from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia ('FMCA') delivered on 27 January 2005 (SZCXJ v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 71). The Federal Magistrate dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). That decision of the Tribunal was made on 22 October 1997 and was authenticated on 23 October 1997. The Tribunal found that the appellant was not a refugee and affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister ('the Delegate' and 'the Minister', respectively) not to grant a protection visa to the appellant.

Background 2 The appellant is a citizen of Nepal who arrived in Australia on 31 July 1995. On 27 October 1995 he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ('the Department'). 3 The appellant's claims were made in submissions in support of his application for the visa, at an interview with the Delegate, and in oral evidence given to the Tribunal at a hearing on 14 October 1997. The Delegate's decision refusing the visa was made on 8 October 1996. 4 The appellant claimed to fear persecution in Nepal on the basis of his political opinion. He claimed that he was a member of the local branch of the Panchayat Party Organisation in Nepal, and that his father was a senior local representative of the party. He claimed to be at risk of harm from members of other political parties in Nepal, and that because of his political opinions and affiliations, he was verbally abused and assaulted on several occasions.