Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZGPA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 760
MIGRATION – Protection visa – well founded fear of persecution – finding of facts open to the Tribunal MIGRATION – Jurisdictional error – failure to consider relevant fact – no jurisdictional fact identified Migration Act 1958 (Cth); s 425 WAEE v Minister for Immigration (2003) 75 ALD 630, applied Attorney-General (NSW) v Quinn (1990) 170 CLR 1, applied
SZGPA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 482 OF 2007
SPENDER ACJ
18 MAY 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 482 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZGPA
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: SPENDER ACJ
DATE OF ORDER: 18 MAY 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appellant have leave to amend the Notice of Appeal in the terms of the Amended Notice of Appeal. 2. The appeal be dismissed 3. The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent, to be taxed if not agreed. 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 482 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZGPA
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: SPENDER ACJ
DATE: 18 MAY 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a decision of Lloyd-Jones FM of 9 March 2007 dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) handed down on 19 May 2005. 2 The Tribunal had affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant to the appellant a Protection Visa. 3 The appellant seeks to rely upon an Amended Notice of Appeal, the first ground of which is that the Federal Magistrate erred in failing to find that the Tribunal had itself failed to consider all the claims put forward by the appellant. In particular, this ground alleges that the Tribunal failed to consider the appellant's claims that a high ranking Maoist was killed by the Nepalese security forces shortly after the appellant had criticised him, and Maoists had attacked his house and assaulted his family. 4 It had been alleged before the Federal Magistrate that the Tribunal failed to consider "the fundamental aspects of the applicant's claims". 5 The two further grounds which the appellant wishes to argue were not raised before the Federal Magistrate. Those grounds are: 2. His Honour erred in failing to find that the second respondent had breached the requirements of s 425(1) of the Migration Act by failing to disclose issues that arose on the application for review. … (b) The capacity of the Maoists to assassinate the appellant anywhere in the country no matter what level of security was present. 3. His Honour erred in failing to find that the second respondent had made implied findings for which there was no evidence. 6 Mr L.J. Karp, Counsel for the appellant, indicated that he no longer pressed 2(a).
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