Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZDIU v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 1130 SZDIU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 736 OF 2007
EDMONDS J
3 AUGUST 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 736 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZDIU
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: EDMONDS J DATE OF ORDER: 3 AUGUST 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs. 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 736 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZDIU
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: EDMONDS J
DATE: 3 AUGUST 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court (Driver FM) dismissing an application for review of a decision of the second respondent ('the Tribunal') affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent ('the Minister') refusing an application for a protection visa.
BACKGROUND 2 Details of the appellant's history and claims together with a summary of the Tribunal's findings are set out in the reasons of his Honour below.
THE GROUNDS OF THE APPLICATION BELOW 3 The proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court were commenced by an application filed on 9 August 2005. On 1 November 2006 an amended application was filed by the appellant, the grounds of which read as follows: '1. The Refugee Review Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction under the [Migration] Act: Particulars A. The Refugee Review Tribunal gives no weight to the following documents that: (i) The First Information Report; (ii) arrest warrant; and (iii) the General Diary lodged by my wife for the recent harm. 2. The Refugee Review Tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction: Particulars A. The Refugee Review Tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction to make the following comment that: (i) there is no real chance that the applicant will be persecuted by his alleged political opponents in the BNP or Jammat-e-Islami if he returns to Bangladesh in the foreseeable future. 3. The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal is contradictory itself and/or the Honourable Member was confused with the various facts: Particulars A. The Tribunal has accepted that I was seriously harmed on one occasion because of my political opinion as a supporter of the Awami League. On the other hand the Tribunal said that this incident was an isolated one and that there is not a real chance that I will be attacked by these assailants in the foreseeable future. 4. The Refugee Review Tribunal made a wrong assumption on its decision by making the following comment: Particulars A. There was no evidence to support the Refugee Review Tribunal's finding that: (i) the applicant is a person [not] of high profile within the Awami League, or that he has a high level of commitment to it.'
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