Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZINF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1281
SZINF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD1122 OF 2007
COLLIER J
20 AUGUST 2007
BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD1122 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZINF
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COLLIER J
DATE OF ORDER: 20 AUGUST 2007
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as second respondent. 2. The application 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 NSD1122 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZINF
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COLLIER J
DATE: 20 AUGUST 2007
PLACE: BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from a judgment of Raphael FM of 12 April 2007. The application before the Federal Magistrate sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("Tribunal") signed on 27 January 2006 and handed down on 16 February 2006. 2 The Tribunal was not a party to this application. In accordance with the decision of the High Court in SAAP v MIMIA (2005) 215 ALR 162 I order the Tribunal joined as second respondent. 3 The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China who arrived in Australia on 11 October 2005. On 3 November 2005 the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa with the then Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. 4 In his application for a protection visa, the applicant claimed to have been a Falun Gong practitioner since 1996 and to have attended demonstrations in Beijing. The applicant claimed that he had been detained by police for 48 hours. He claimed he was unable to practise freely and was strictly supervised by government officials. The applicant claimed to have continued practising in secret and that he assisted a Falun Gong branch leader to develop their branch rapidly. In March 2005 the leader was detained and police came to search the applicant's home the next day. The applicant paid a large sum of money for a passport to come to Australia.
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