SZEOS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 149

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEOS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 149 SZEOS V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS NSD 2199 OF 2005 STONE J 22 FEBRUARY 2006 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2199 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZEOS

FIRST APPELLANT

SZEOT

SECOND APPELLANT

SZEOU

THIRD APPELLANT

AND MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE OF ORDER: 22 FEBRUARY 2006

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The first and second appellants are to pay the 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 2199 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZEOS

FIRST APPELLANT

SZEOT

SECOND APPELLANT

SZEOU

THIRD APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE: 22 FEBRUARY 2006

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from the judgment of a Federal Magistrate delivered on 28 October 2005 dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent refusing to grant the appellants protection visas.

Background 2 The appellants, husband, wife and child, are citizens of India. They arrived in Australia on 8 March 2004 and on 27 May 2004 lodged applications for protection visas. Only the husband (the first appellant) made specific claims under the Refugee Convention – the other appellants relied on their membership of his family. For present purposes it is sufficient to note that the first appellant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution arising from his wife's family's violent objections to him being a member of a different caste or culture group. The Tribunal's decision 3 The Tribunal did not accept the appellants' evidence that they left India because they feared serious harm from the wife's family or that they could not return to India because of this fear. In particular, the Tribunal considered that the first appellant's claim to fear for his own safety and for that of his immediate family was inconsistent with his conduct in the relevant period and the conduct of the second appellant. The Tribunal noted that in the period following his marriage the first appellant made four trips to Australia and returned several times to live in or near Mumbai where the wife's family lived. The Tribunal also did not accept that the wife's family was likely to harm her or to bring a false felony charge against the first appellant if the appellants were to return to India. 4 Accordingly the Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of the Convention and affirmed the decision of the first respondent's delegate.