Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZBUU v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 360
SZBUU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2317 OF 2006
BENNETT J
21 FEBRUARY 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY nsd 2317 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZBUU
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: BENNETT J
DATE OF ORDER: 21 FEBRUARY 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The name of the first respondent be changed to the 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'. 2. The Refugee Review Tribunal is joined as the second respondent. 3. The appeal is dismissed. 4. The appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs. 5. Leave is granted to the first respondent to file and serve documentation in support of any application for fixed costs within seven days. 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 2317 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZBUU
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: BENNETT J
DATE: 21 FEBRUARY 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant is a citizen of India who claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution. His application for a protection visa asserted that he was persecuted by the Indian authorities because he was a member of the Student Islamic Movement of India, or "SIMI". 2 The decision of the Delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant a protection visa was reviewed and affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed with the appellant that his claim based on membership of SIMI was the only claim upon which he asserted refugee status. The Tribunal rejected that claim for the reasons that it gave. The Tribunal referred to country information about SIMI, which indicated that SIMI membership terminates at the age of 30 and that former members move onto other Muslim associations thereafter. It accepted that the appellant was involved with SIMI in the early 1980's and that he could have maintained a relationship with SIMI after reaching 30 years of age. The country information together with the 'sketchy and ambiguous' information from the appellant as to his asserted 'trustee-manager' role led the Tribunal to reject the claim that the appellant held a position with SIMI that could be characterised as 'prominent' or a 'leadership role'. 3 The appellant applied for an order from the Federal Magistrates Court to show cause why a remedy should not be granted in respect of the Tribunal's decision and raised a number of grounds of review in so doing. Those grounds of review were comprehensively dealt with by Federal Magistrate Scarlett (SZBUU v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 1714). His Honour dismissed the application without stating expressly whether that dismissal was pursuant to r 44.12(1)(a) or (c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth). The parties proceeded on the understanding that his Honour's judgment was final rather than interlocutory and I am satisfied, from my review of his Honour's reasons, that it is appropriate to proceed on that basis.
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