Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZKOW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1708
SZKOW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1528 OF 2007
COWDROY J
29 NOVEMBER 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1528 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZKOW
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J DATE OF ORDER: 29 NOVEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The Appellant pay the costs of the First Respondent fixed in the sum of $3500 pursuant to Order 62 Rule 4(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth).
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 1528 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZKOW
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE: 29 NOVEMBER 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant appeals from the decision of Federal Magistrate Scarlett dated 17 June 2007 which affirmed the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') handed down on 3 April 2007. The Tribunal had upheld a decision of a delegate of the extant Minster for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ('the Minister') to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant.
BACKGROUND 2 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China ('the PRC') who arrived in Australia on 19 September 2006. On 20 September 2006 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The Minister refused the application for a protection visa on 18 December 2006. On 29 December 2006 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The appellant claimed that she feared persecution in the PRC because she was a Falun Gong practitioner. The appellant said that she had been introduced to Falun Gong by her husband and that she and her husband were detained in May 2005. The appellant claimed she paid a large sum to secure her release, and that she departed the PRC for Chile. The appellant said that she could not obtain protection there, so she came 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