Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZJFV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 163
SZJFV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2137 OF 2007
KENNY J
27 FEBRUARY 2008
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2137 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZJFV
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: KENNY J
DATE OF ORDER: 27 FEBRUARY 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal fixed in the sum of $2,000.00.
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 2137 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZJFV
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: KENNY J
DATE: 27 FEBRUARY 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court of 9 October 2007, dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). 2 The appellant is a citizen of Indonesia, who arrived in Australia on 16 January 2006. On 10 February 2006 she lodged an application for a protection visa. A delegate of the first respondent refused her application for a protection visa on 13 March 2006. On 12 April 2006 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision.
THE TRIBUNAL'S DECISION 3 In her application for a protection visa, the appellant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution in Indonesia based on her Chinese ethnicity. The appellant made general claims of human rights violations, discrimination, and sexual harassment. More specifically, the appellant claimed that her business was burnt and looted by local Indonesians many times. She referred to riots in May 1998 and in 2004. She said that she feared she would be killed if she returned to Indonesia. 4 On 1 May 2006 the Tribunal wrote to the appellant at her postal address inviting her to attend a hearing on 27 June 2006. The letter was directed to the postal address specified in her review application. The appellant did not reply to the hearing invitation. On 21 June 2006 the Tribunal posted another copy of the invitation to the appellant's residential address, as specified on her review application. There was no response and the appellant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. 5 As the appellant failed to appear, the Tribunal decided to make a decision without any further action under s 426A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act'). The Tribunal found that it lacked sufficient detail to be able to be satisfied as to the veracity of the appellant's claims. The Tribunal sent a letter to her notifying her of its decision on 18 July 2006.
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