Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZKTC v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 1831
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 424A, 425
SZKTC v Minister for Immigration [2007] FMCA 1355 considered SZKTC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1725 OF 2007
BENNETT J
20 NOVEMBER 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1725 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZKTC
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: BENNETT J DATE OF ORDER: 20 NOVEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs. 3. The first respondent has leave to forward to my chambers within seven (7) days any evidence in support of an application for fixed costs. 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 1725 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZKTC
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: BENNETT J
DATE: 20 NOVEMBER 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, claimed to fear persecution as a result of his practice of Falun Gong. The appellant's application for a Protection (Class XA) visa was refused. The appellant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal for a review of that decision. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant was a person to whom Australia had protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. The appellant's application to the Federal Magistrates Court for review of the Tribunal decision was dismissed by Driver FM (SZKTC v Minister for Immigration [2007] FMCA 1355). 2 In his notice of appeal before this Court the appellant raises two broad grounds: 1. That the Tribunal failed to carry out its statutory duty. 2. That the Tribunal failed to explain, in the form of a document, the reason why the Tribunal considered some particulars of the information relevant to the matter.
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