Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZKJO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1829
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 424A, 425, 426A, 441A and 441C(1)
SZKJO v Minister for Immigration [2007] FMCA 1534 affirmed SZKJO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1756 OF 2007
HEEREY J
21 NOVEMBER 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1756 OF 2007
BETWEEN: SZKJO
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: HEEREY J
DATE OF ORDER: 21 NOVMEBER 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $1000. 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 1756 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZKJO
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: HEEREY J
DATE: 21 NOVEMBER 2007
PLACE: sydney
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court which dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse the appellant a protection visa. 2 The nature of the appellant's visa application, the reasoning of the Tribunal, and the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court are set out in the judgment of the Federal Magistrate, which is available on the internet: SZKJO v Minister for Immigration [2007] FMCA 1534. 3 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China who arrived in Australia on 7 September 2006. The appellant claimed to have well-founded fear of persecution as a supporter of the Falun Gong. The appellant failed to attend the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal sent the appellant an invitation to the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal received no response, and the letter was not returned unclaimed.
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