Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZFAK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 237
SZFAK AND SZFAL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 72 OF 2006
SACKVILLE J
16 MARCH 2006
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 72 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZFAK
FIRST APPELLANT
SZFAL
SECOND APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER: 16 MARCH 2006
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The first appellant pay the first 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 72 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZFAK
FIRST APPELLANT
SZFAL
SECOND APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: SACKVILLE J
DATE: 16 MARCH 2006
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court given on 13 December 2005. That Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('RRT') which had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent ('the Minister') to refuse the appellants a protection visa. 2 The appellants are a married couple who are both citizens of Mongolia. The second appellant is the wife of the first appellant and her claim to a protection visa rests on the success or otherwise of the first appellant's application. 3 The appellants arrived in Australia on 21 February 2004. On 1 April 2004, they lodged an application for a protection visa, which was refused by the delegate on 16 April 2004. 4 On 25 May 2004, the RRT received an application for review of the delegate's decision. The RRT wrote to the first appellant, advising him that it was unable to arrive at a decision in his favour on the material before it. The first appellant was invited to attend a hearing on 7 September 2004. He did so and gave oral evidence at that hearing. On 7 October 2004, the RRT handed down its decision, which affirmed the delegate's refusal to grant the appellants protection visas. 5 The first appellant's claims were set out in his application for a protection visa. Those claims were repeated in his application to the RRT. In substance, the first appellant claimed that he had become a member of a political organisation in Mongolia known as the New Leaders Club. He claimed that he had become a very active member of that organisation and had been involved in agitation against Communists from the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party ('MPRP'). The first appellant said that he had attempted to expose the corruption and 'criminal structures' of the MPRP. 6 According to the first appellant, in consequence of his political activities, he was interrogated by the local police and kept in detention overnight 'in terrible conditions'. He claimed that he had been warned by fellow members of the Club that he, along with others, might face serious problems if they continued their agitation against the Communists. 7 The RRT did not accept the first appellant's claim that he had experienced harm in the past from the authorities in Mongolia by reason of his political activities. Nor did the RRT accept that he would face harm from the authorities on his return to Mongolia by reason of those political opinions. The RRT explained its reasons as follows: 'The [RRT] considers that the [first appellant's] description of his political activities and his political beliefs as set out in his written submissions and as stated in his oral evidence were somewhat general, non-specific and lacking in detail. While the [RRT] accepts that the [first appellant] may have democratic sentiment and may be opposed to the MPRP and spoke with work mates against the communist government as well as helping women and children, the [RRT] does not consider it plausible that this level of political involvement would result in the [first appellant] coming to the attention of political opponents or government authorities who then detained him for reasons of his political opinion.'
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate