Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZERD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 560
SZERD and SZERE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 225 OF 2006 EDMONDS J 12 MAY 2006 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 225 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZERD
FIRST APPELLANT
SZERE
SECOND APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: EDMONDS J
DATE OF ORDER: 12 MAY 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 NSD 225 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZERD
FIRST APPELLANT
SZERE
SECOND APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: EDMONDS J
DATE: 12 MAY 2006
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Edmonds J:
Introduction 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court (Lloyd-Jones FM) dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent ('the Minister') to refuse to grant protection visas to the appellants.
Background 2 The appellant husband ('the appellant') and his wife are citizens of Nepal. They entered Australia on 7 December 2003 on three-month visitors' visas. Their claims for refugee status are based on the appellant's claims of persecution, the wife having no independent claims. In a statement lodged with their visa applications, the appellant stated that he had served for 18 years as an officer in the Indian Army. On his retirement in 1990, he returned to Nepal and opened a successful business. The Maoists wanted him to use his military expertise to train their cadets, and he and his family were threatened when he ignored their requests. The appellant and his family moved from city to city and managed to hide from the Maoists. He approached the police, but there was little the police could do for them. The appellant said that he and his spouse sold the business, their house and all their assets and came to Australia after he received a phone call in February 2002 from Comrade Leader Ram Bahadur Thapa (Badal). 3 On 2 April 2004 a delegate of the Minister refused their visa applications.
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