Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZKTU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 132
SZKTU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1960 OF 2007
COWDROY J
21 FEBRUARY 2008
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1960 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZKTU
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE OF ORDER: 21 FEBRUARY 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The Appellant pay the costs of the First Respondent as agreed or taxed. 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 1960 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZKTU
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE: 21 FEBRUARY 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant appeals from a decision of Federal Magistrate Scarlett delivered on 13 September 2007 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') handed down on 24 May 2007. The Tribunal had affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship ('the Minister') made on 1 February 2007 that refused to grant a protection visa to the appellant.
BACKGROUND 2 The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh and arrived in Australia on 22 September 2006 holding a business visa. By application dated 2 November 2006 the appellant applied to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs for a Protection (Class XA) visa. Such application was refused on 1 February 2007. On 16 February 2007 the appellant applied for review of the decision of the Minister's delegate. The Tribunal invited the appellant to a hearing on 16 April 2007 which he duly attended. 3 The appellant claimed that he was a religious Muslim scholar and was a leader of Jammat-e-Islami ('JI'). He claimed to have been a member of JI since 2001. He claimed that after JI came to power in a coalition with the Bangladesh National Party ('BNP') he received threats from members of the opposition Awami League. He claimed to have suffered persecution resulting from his religion and political opinions. 4 The appellant claimed that after he left Bangladesh for Australia, Awami League members went to his house in search of him. In his absence they allegedly harassed and tortured his family members. The appellant said that on the following day the Awami League members returned and told his family that they would kill the appellant if he returned to Bangladesh. The appellant stated that he fears harassment, humiliation and false criminal charges if he were to return.
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