Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZKSA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 176
SZKSA AND SZKSB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2281 OF 2007
MCKERRACHER J
28 FEBRUARY 2008
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2281 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZKSA
First Appellant
SZKSB
Second Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MCKERRACHER J
DATE OF ORDER: 28 FEBRUARY 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellants to pay the costs of the first respondent to be fixed at $2,500.
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 2281 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZKSA
First Appellant
SZKSB
Second Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MCKERRACHER J
DATE: 28 FEBRUARY 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a decision of a Federal Magistrate (Cameron FM) made on 1 November 2007 (SZKSA & Anor v Minster for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 1834) dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) signed on 17 April 2007 and handed down on 10 May 2007. 2 On 11 August 2006 the appellants arrived in Australia. They are citizens of India. On 7 September 2006 the appellants lodged an application for protection visas with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (as it was then known). A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for protection visas on 23 October 2006. On 14 November 2006 the appellants applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The appellants are from Ahmedabad. The first appellant is a 48 year old man and the second appellant is his 45 year old wife. 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