Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZFVG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1179
SZFVG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 663 OF 2006
EDMONDS J
1 SEPTEMBER 2006
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 663 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZFVG
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: EDMONDS J
DATE OF ORDER: 1 SEPTEMBER 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 663 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZFVG
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: EDMONDS J
DATE: 1 SEPTEMBER 2006
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction 1 This is an appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court (Smith FM) dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the second respondent ('the Tribunal') affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent ('the Minister') to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa.
The Decision under Review 2 The appellant is a citizen of Lebanon who arrived in Australia on 17 July 1995. He lodged a protection visa application which was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 3 June 1998. The appellant then applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision on 30 June 1998. 3 The appellant advanced claims to fear persecution from Syrian and Lebanese authorities and intelligence forces as well as Islamic militias in Syria. On 21 January 1999 the Tribunal wrote to the appellant and informed him that, after looking at the material relating to his application, it was not prepared to make a 'favourable decision' on that information alone and invited him to attend a hearing to give oral evidence in support of his claims. The appellant responded to that invitation by indicating that he wished to come to a hearing, but ultimately he failed to attend. The appellant would later claim in the Federal Magistrates Court that the reason for his failure to appear was that he did not receive the letter advising him of the hearing date. The Tribunal, faced with the non-appearance of the appellant, proceeded to make its decisions. The Tribunal based its rejection of his application for a protection visa on its inability to be satisfied on the limited information before it that he met the applicable visa criteria. The Tribunal's conclusion is expressed in the following terms: 'Having considered the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2) of the Act for a protection visa.'
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