Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZCRX v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 1131 SZCRX & SZCRY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 595 OF 2007
EDMONDS J
3 AUGUST 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 595 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZCRX & SZCRY
Appellants
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 appellants pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $3,000. 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 595 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZCRX & SZCRY
Appellants
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 (Smith 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 The appellants arrived in Australia on Indian passports on 4 December 2002 and lodged applications for protection visas on 24 December 2002. Only the first named appellant (the husband) made specific claims to be entitled to protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. He claimed to fear persecution in Bangladesh for reasons of his membership and support of the Awami League and also because he was part of the Hindu minority in that country. He also claimed that he faced persecution in India on account of having married a woman from a lower caste than his own. On 29 July 2003, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visas and on 25 August 2003 the appellants applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision. 3 On 21 January 2004, the Tribunal handed down a decision affirming the delegate's decision but this decision was set aside by consent by orders made in the Federal Magistrates Court (Scarlett FM) on 7 March 2006. TheTribunal, differently constituted, invited the appellants to a further hearing which they attended and gave evidence and presented arguments relating to the issues arising upon review of the decision. On 30May 2006, it made its decision to affirm the delegate's decision.
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