SZBOT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 411

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBOT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 411

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 91R

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs v Respondents S152/2003 (2004) 205 ALR 487 SZDWR v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 36 SZBOT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD1724 OF 2005 BENNETT J 13 APRIL 2006 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD1724 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZBOT

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 13 APRIL 2006

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs. 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 NSD1724 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZBOT

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE: 13 APRIL 2006

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant is an Indian national who arrived in Australia on 18 June 2002. On 24 September 2003, the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') confirmed the decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse him a protection visa. The appellant claimed to fear persecution at the hands of Muslim fundamentalists on grounds of being a Hindu and a former member of the Bharatiya Janata Party. His claimed fear was not due to any personal experiences on his part or particular mistreatment suffered but was based upon the existence of communal violence in India. 2 On appeal to the Federal Magistrates Court, Barnes FM dealt comprehensively with the various grounds of the application for review relied upon by Mr Turner, the solicitor for the appellant. I do not propose to repeat or summarise the detail of her Honour's decision other than as necessary to deal with the grounds of appeal. Mr Turner confirmed that, despite the notice of appeal and written submissions repeating each of the grounds before her Honour, there were two grounds of appeal pressed before me.