SZDOU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1235

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDOU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1235 SZDOU V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD79 OF 2005 BENNETT J 5 SEPTEMBER 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 79 OF 2005

BETWEEN: SZDOU

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 5 SEPTEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondents' costs in the amount of $1500. 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 79 OF 2005

BETWEEN: SZDOU

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE: 5 SEPTEMBER 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from the decision of the Federal Magistrate Lloyd-Jones made on 22 December 2004, dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') made on 24 March 2004. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent made on 19 December 2002 to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa. 2 The appellant is a citizen of India who claimed a fear of persecution by the Indian authorities (at the behest of the authorities of the Indian state Tamil Nadu), due to his political support of the Marumalouchi Dravida Munnetua Kazhagam ('MDMK') and his Muslim faith. 3 In particular he claimed that: a) he witnessed a number of killings and the massacre of Tamils in Colombo while he was in Sri Lanka; b) he decided to assist the Sri Lankan Tamils and became involved in the recruitment of Tamils to work in Singapore and the assistance of Sri Lankan refugees in India; c) the Tamil Nadu government monitored his involvement with the Sri Lankan Tamil liberation movement and harassed and interrogated him about his support of that movement; d) while he was not arrested by the authorities, there was a constant threat to himself and his family which impinged upon his freedom; e) at the same time he supported the MDMK and its leader, Mr V. Gopalsamy (known as 'Vaiko') who was a strong supporter of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam ('LTTE'). Through his association with Vaiko and the MDMK, the appellant increased his adverse profile with the Tamil Nadu Government and subsequently fled to Brunei; f) he was continually harassed, although friends and supporters provided security for him and his family; g) because the authorities believed that LTTE was involved in the assassination of Rajiv Ghandi ('Ghandi') this could make the appellant a possible target for revenge; h) as late as December 2002 the appellant's wife was threatened with murder and his family had to be given a police escort; and i) the appellant could also be harmed because of his wife's involvement with the Bharatiya Janata Party ( the 'BJP').