Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZIQP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 169
SZIQP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1841 OF 2007
COWDROY J
27 FEBRUARY 2008
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1841 OF 2007
BETWEEN: SZIQP
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE OF ORDER: 27 FEBRUARY 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed. 2. The Applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent in the amount of $1,600 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 1841 OF 2007
BETWEEN: SZIQP
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE: 27 FEBRUARY 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant applies to this Court for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from the decision of Federal MagistrateRaphaeldelivered on 15 August 2007. The application before Raphael FM sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') signed on 21 March 2006.
BACKGROUND 2 The applicant is a citizen of Indiawho arrived in Australia on 16 September 2005. On 27 September 2005 the applicant lodged an application for a Protection (Class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. A delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ('the Minister') refused the application for a protection visa on 4 November 2005. On 21 November 2005 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate's decision. 3 The applicant claimed to have well-founded fear of persecution resulting from his religious beliefs. He claimed that Hindus had targeted him because of his Islamic faith. The applicant claimed to have later rallied together with friends to stop 'racial disgrace', and that he was 'the important person in the group' of demonstrators. The applicant claimed that Hindus attacked, scolded and threatened the rally participants on 28 October 1999. 4 The applicant claimed that later in 1999 he and a friend were physically attacked by a group of six people. The applicant claimed that he identified his attackers to the police and that his evidence led to the conviction of a prominent Hindu person. The applicant claimed that he feared retributive harm from the Hindu community and Hindu organisations such as the Hindu Front and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ('RSS'). He claimed that he was told that the Hindu Front and the RSS would not allow him to live peaceably. 5 The applicant arrived in Australia on 27 July 2005 but returned to India on 1 August 2005. He claimed that he returned to India because he missed his family. However his return to India was temporary as the applicant claimed that further threats compelled him once again to flee India. The applicant arrived in Australia on 16 September 2005.
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