SZIGZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 153

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIGZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 153 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 91R, 91R(1)(b), 415 SZIGZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1794 OF 2006

NICHOLSON J

21 FEBRUARY 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1794 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZIGZ

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: NICHOLSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 21 FEBRUARY 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The description of the first respondent be amended to 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'. 2. The appeal be dismissed. 3. The appellant pay the 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 1794 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZIGZ

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: NICHOLSON J

DATE: 21 FEBRUARY 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a decision of a Federal Magistrate (Smith FM) made on 28 August 2006 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 23 December 2005 and handed down on 12 January 2006. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant.

The appellant's claims 2 The appellant was found to be a citizen of India who arrived in Australia on 23 June 2005. On 20 July 2005 the appellant lodged an application for a protection (class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (as it then was). A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 1 September 2005. On 26 September 2005 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision providing the decision of the delegate with his application. The Tribunal invited the applicant to a hearing. The appellant attended and was assisted by a Punjabi interpreter. 3 Before the Tribunal the appellant claimed to have a well founded fear of persecution by Muslim militants because of his role as a police informer against them and because of his Sikh religion. He claimed that he informed police of activities of Muslim militants in the town of Jammu, asserting that the militants had seen him on the phone and concluded he was a police informer. The appellant claimed that two of the militants who had seen him on the phone had been killed in an encounter with the police although two had escaped. He claimed that these latter two militants attacked him, causing injuries requiring hospitalisation. The appellant claimed that he lodged a report with the police to no avail and was later attacked by the militants again. He also claimed he left Punjab for Sonipat to work with his brother-in-law yet was attacked again and subsequently decided to leave India.