Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZKIR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1786
SZKIR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD1796 OF 2007
COLLIER J
20 NOVEMBER 2007
BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD1796 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZKIR
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COLLIER J DATE OF ORDER: 20 NOVEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 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 NSD1796 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZKIR
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COLLIER J
DATE: 20 NOVEMBER 2007
PLACE: BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from the decision of Cameron FM dated 21 August 2007, dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") dated 30 January 2007. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent dated 29 September 2006 wherein the delegate refused the grant of a protection visa to the appellant.
Background 2 The appellant is a citizen of India. He arrived in Australia on 23 May 2006 and applied for a protection visa on 3 July 2006. The appellant claimed to have suffered persecution from relatives and members of extremist Hindu groups on the basis of his membership of a particular social group, for his political opinion, and for his Muslim religion. 3 The appellant claims he was the target of relatives who wanted an inheritance of property that had been transferred to him by his uncle. The appellant claims that his uncle and father were killed by the relatives and his life was threatened in the course of the proceedings. The appellant asserts that he was in fear of his life and attempted to move to Malaysia, but as he was unable to stay in Malaysia permanently he returned to India and secretly continued living at his place of residence. 4 In 2003 the appellant claims his shop was burnt down by opposition party supporters in revenge of an incident in 2001 where several Hindus and Muslims were killed. The appellant contends that because of his complaint to the police, the opposition supporters attacked him and his family and threatened to kill him if the complaint was not withdrawn. 5 The appellant also claims to be a member of the All India Anna Diravida Kalagam (AIADMK) Party, and that when the party lost the election in 2006 the opposition ruling parties spread rumours he was a Muslim terrorist and that he was to be arrested. The appellant claims that he was attacked three times and therefore went to Dubai, but was still threatened even there and quickly returned to India where his political opponents attempted to kill him by driving a truck into his motorbike. The appellant claims to fear for his life if he were to return to India.
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