SZIBU & Another v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Another [2007] FCA 108

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIBU & Another v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Another [2007] FCA 108 SZIBU & SZIBV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1898 OF 2006

COWDROY J

13 FEBRUARY 2006

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1898 OF 2006

BETWEEN: SZIBU & SZIBV

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: COWDROY J DATE OF ORDER: 13 FEBRUARY 2006

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellants pay the costs of the first respondent in the sum of $3000.00. 3. The name of the first respondent be amended to 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'. 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 1898 OF 2006

BETWEEN: SZIBU & SZIBV

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: COWDROY J

DATE: 13 FEBRUARY 2006

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellants appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Emmett delivered on 11 September 2006 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') dated 25 November 2005 and handed down on 15 December 2005. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ('the Minister') to refuse to grant a Protection visa to the appellant. 2 The appellants are Indian nationals and are, respectively, husband and wife. The appellants arrived in Australia on 21 April 2005 and lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ('the Department') on 24 May 2005. The appellant wife had no claims of her own and relied on membership of the appellant husband's family unit. The Minister refused the application for a Protection visa on 8 July 2005. On 25 November the appellants applied for a review of that decision. The appellants were invited to, and attended a hearing. The appellant husband attended and was assisted by a Gujarati interpreter. In this judgment I shall refer to the husband as the appellant. 3 Before the Tribunal the appellant explained that the information provided in his application for a Protection visa was not as he had explained to his migration adviser. Instead he claimed that he had suffered troubles after opening a business in 2002 he was the subject of extortion and threats from local thugs, to whom he also referred to as 'terrorists'. The appellant claims that he complained to the police and they demanded payment. The appellant asserts he did not pay the police and his bicycle was subsequently stolen. The appellant claims his business was attacked and goods were damaged. He was unable to pay the suppliers of his business and lost his savings. The appellant claimed that he was afraid of the thugs.