SZHOK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 666

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZHOK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 666 SZHOK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL VID 0074 OF 2007

Tracey J

8 MAY 2007

MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 0074 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZHOK

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE Tracey J DATE OF ORDER: 8 MAY 2005

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The name of the first respondent be amended to read "Minister for Immigration and Citizenship". 2. The applicant's application for leave to appeal is refused 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

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 0074 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZHOK

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: Tracey J

DATE: 8 MAY 2007

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This purports to be an appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate delivered on 20 December 2006 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") dated 22 September 2006: see [2006] FMCA 1479. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse to grant a protection visa to the applicant. 2 The applicant is a citizen of India of the Hindu faith. He arrived in Australia on 13 March 2005. He entered on a business visa. The applicant claimed that he had been targeted by Hindu extremist groups after he had provided shelter to a group of Muslims in his factory during a period of anti-Muslim rioting in his home district. 3 The Tribunal appears to have accepted that the applicant was exposed to anti-Muslim riots while providing shelter to a number of Muslims in his factory. However, the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant was specifically targeted by Hindu groups as a result of these actions. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon Country Information for India, which did not contain material supportive of the claim that Hindu residents who had provided assistance to Muslim groups were targeted or persecuted by Hindu extremists. The Tribunal member concluded by stating: "Taking into account my findings I do not accept that if the applicant were to return to India now or in the foreseeable future he would face a real chance of persecution for reasons of religion or membership of a particular social group or any other Convention related reason."