Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZIBW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 160
SZIBW AND SZIBX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2146 OF 2007
MCKERRACHER J
26 FEBRUARY 2008
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2146 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZIBW
First Appellant
SZIBX
Second Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MCKERRACHER J
DATE OF ORDER: 26 FEBRUARY 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellants pay the costs of the first respondent to be 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 2146 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZIBW
First Appellant
SZIBX
Second Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MCKERRACHER J
DATE: 26 FEBRUARY 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a decision of a Federal Magistrate (Cameron FM) made on 17 October 2007 (SZIBW & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 1660) dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) handed down on 2 November 2006. 2 The appellants are citizens of India. They arrived in Australia on 11 July 2005. On 10 August 2005 the appellants lodged an application for protection visas with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (as it was then known). A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for protection visas on 16 September 2005. On 13 October 2005 the appellants applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The decision of the first Tribunal, handed down on 13 December 2005 was dismissed and by consent by the Federal Magistrates Court on 26 May 2006 was remitted to a second Tribunal, the decision of which is the subject of the present appeal. 4 The appellants, who are from Gujarat, are a husband and wife both aged 44 years. Only the appellant husband made claims under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 and amended under the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees 1967 (the Convention) with the appellant wife relying on membership of his family unit. As only the appellant husband made claims to fear persecution he will be referred to as the appellant.
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