SZDTW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1791

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDTW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1791 SZDTW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1820 of 2005 BRANSON J 13 DECEMBER 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1820 of 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZDTW

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 13 DECEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondents' costs fixed in the amount of $3000.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1820 of 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZDTW

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE: 13 DECEMBER 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction 1 The appellant, a citizen of India, appeals to this Court from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court delivered on 8 September 2005. By that judgment the Federal Magistrate dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the second respondent ('the Tribunal') affirming the decision of a delegate of the first respondent ('the Minister') to refuse the appellant a protection visa.

Background 2 The appellant claims to fear persecution in India for reason of his political opinion and membership of a particular social group. He asserts that he has spoken out against the effect of liquor and poverty on villagers and this was seen negatively by politicians and union leaders who owned the liquor shops. He states that he 'fought for justice, would not accept corruption, sowed the seeds of revolution and … wanted to write about India'. The appellant claims to have been assaulted in three incidents in 1997, 2000 and 2003 and that he will be killed by politicians or the police if he returns to India. He also claims to have experienced social alienation and employment difficulties as a person of mixed caste background. 3 The appellant applied for a protection visa on 28 January 2003. His application was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 27 June 2003 and the appellant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision on 3 July 2003. 4 On 21 April 2004 the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the appellant a protection visa. The Tribunal expressed doubt regarding the appellant's claimed assaults and found that, even if the assaults had occurred, they were unconnected and did not target the appellant for a Convention reason. The Tribunal also found the appellant's evidence about his experience of discrimination owing to his mixed caste background to be unconvincing and that, in any case, the appellant's claimed caste-related difficulties did not amount to persecution. Overall, the Tribunal found the appellant's evidence to be evasive, lacking in specific detail and not that of a frank or credible witness.