Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZKIP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 95
SZKIP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1970 OF 2007
COWDROY J
18 FEBRUARY 2008
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1970 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZKIP
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J DATE OF ORDER: 18 FEBRUARY 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The Appellant pay the costs of the First Respondent in the amount of $1,700 pursuant to O 62 r 4(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules. 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 1970 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZKIP
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE: 18 FEBRUARY 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of Federal Magistrate Scarlett of 13 September 2007 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') handed down on 15 February 2007. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship ('the Minister') to refuse the grant of a protection visa to the appellant.
BACKGROUND 2 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China who arrived in Australia on 7 July 2006. On 12 July 2006 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa and that application was refused on 3 August 2006. On 23 October 2007 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The appellant claimed to have well-founded fear of persecution as a Falun Gong practitioner. He claimed he was introduced to Falun Gong in May 1999. Central to his claims was an arrest by the police in July 2002 where he was detained for one month and mistreated. He claimed he was released after his family paid a fine and after he had signed a statement that he would not practise Falun Gong anymore. He asserted that soon after his release he was dismissed from his employment as his employers knew he was a Falun Gong practitioner and did not want trouble from the local police. The appellant claimed he practised Falun Gong covertly and was worried about his safety.
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