Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NAVH v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 373 NAVH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FMCA 1704 affirmed NAVH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1558 cited NAVH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2295 OF 2006
HEEREY J
27 FEBRUARY 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2295 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: NAVH
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: HEEREY J DATE OF ORDER: 27 FEBRUARY 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. 2. The respondent's name be amended to Minister for Immigration & Citizenship. 3. The Refugee Review Tribunal be added as the second respondent. 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 2295 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: NAVH
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: HEEREY J
DATE: 27 FEBRUARY 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of Barnes FM of 31 October 2006: NAVH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FMCA 1704. The application before the Federal Magistrate sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 30 June 2003 affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant a protection visa to the applicant. 2 The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan who arrived in Australia on 28 July 2001. On 20 May 2002 the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa with the department. On 25 July 2002 a delegate of the Minister refused the application and the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review. In his protection visa application the applicant claimed fear of persecution by reason of his political opinion. The applicant claimed his father had been carrying out activities against drug traffickers and was murdered by drug smugglers because of those activities. 3 The applicant claimed he would be persecuted in Pakistan because of his father's activities. The applicant further claimed he would be arrested because of his opposition to the military regime in Pakistan. In particular, the applicant claimed to be a member of the Pakhtoon Khwa Party and to have written articles against the dictatorial regime of General Musharaf. The applicant claimed he and his father were attacked by ICI members who had connections to drug smugglers. 4 The applicant claimed that as a result of this attack he left Pakistan for the United Arab Emirates. At the hearing the applicant did not repeat claims that he was a member of the Pakhtoon Khwa Party, or that he had written articles against the military regime.
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