Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZGJY v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2007] FCA 380
MIGRATION - appeal from a decision of a Federal Magistrate - no point of principle Held: Appeal dismissed
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 422B, 424A MIMA v Lay Lat (2006) 151 FCR 214 cited SZCIJ v MIMIA [2006] FCAFC 62 cited SZEEU v MIMIA [2006] FCAFC 2 cited SZGJY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD2470 OF 2006
COLLIER J
19 MARCH 2007
BRISBANE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD2470 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZGJY
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COLLIER J DATE OF ORDER: 19 MARCH 2007
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed with costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD2470 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZGJY
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COLLIER J
DATE: 19 MARCH 2007
PLACE: BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from the decision of Nicholls FM of 11 December 2006, dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant.
BACKGROUND 2 The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia on 25 September 2004 on an Australian business visitor (short stay) visa. The appellant's business visa application indicated that he was a dentist in Bangladesh and that his business activity in Australia was "to see…dental activity on sterilisation and anaesthesia" (this was later described by the Tribunal as "to attend a conference"). The appellant's business visa application was supported by extensive documentation regarding his dental practice in Dhaka and his dental qualifications, and included a letter from Australian Politician the Hon Peter Lewis MP, Speaker of the House and Member for Hammond in South Australia thanking the appellant for treating his wife's dental problem whilst she was in Dhaka in 2003. 3 I understand that the appellant's business visa application was valid for a stay of up to three weeks. On 11 October 2004 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with then Department of Immigration Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("Department"). The appellant's application stated that "my political affiliation with the Jatiya Party forced me to leave the country… If I return home I will be persecuted". 4 On 19 October 2004 a delegate of the first respondent advised the appellant that his application had been refused because he did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa application. On 15 November 2004 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. His application was accompanied by a letter dated 15 January 2005 purporting to be from the President of the Jatiya Party about the appellant's involvement with the Jatiya Party, and an extract from the Pirojpur Municipality Register of Births. The Tribunal invited the appellant to attend a hearing on 24 February 2005. The appellant attended and was assisted by a Bengali interpreter. 5 Following the hearing on 24 February 2005 the appellant was sent a letter pursuant to s 424A Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). The letter referred to his business visa application and supporting documentation to that application which, in asserting his occupation as a dentist, contradicted his claims that he was associated with the Jatiya Party. The Tribunal sought the appellant's comments. The appellant responded in a letter dated 22 March 2005.
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