Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
MZXEV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 186
MZXEV, MZXEW AND MZXEX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL VID 779 OF 2007
SUNDBERG J
29 FEBRUARY 2008
MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 779 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: MZXEV
First Appellant
MZXEW
Second Appellant
MZXEX
Third Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: SUNDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER: 29 FEBRUARY 2008
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellants pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 779 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: MZXEV
First Appellant
MZXEW
Second Appellant
MZXEX
Third Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: SUNDBERG J
DATE: 29 FEBRUARY 2008
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellants, who are husband, wife and son, are citizens of Sri Lanka who arrived in Australia on 28 December 1998. On 8 February 1999 they applied for protection visas. A delegate of the first respondent (the respondent) refused the application. The appellants unsuccessfully applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal for a review of that decision. Their application for review by the Federal Magistrates Court was dismissed. They now appeal to this Court. Pursuant to s25(1AA) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 the appeal is heard by a single judge. 2 The essence of the appellants' claim before the Tribunal was of an alleged fear of persecution due to the first appellant's active support for the Sri Lankan Freedom Party (SLFP). He said he had been threatened, attacked and beaten by supporters of the United National Party (UNP). The first appellant also claimed that his family had been subjected to numerous threats and attacks, and fled to Australia out of fear of a more serious attack. Additionally, he claimed to fear persecution as a Christian in Sri Lanka and on account of his Burgher/Tamil ethnicity. The Tribunal did not accept the appellants' claims due to their vague, inconsistent and unconvincing evidence. 3 The Federal Magistrate held that it was clearly open to the Tribunal to reach the conclusion that it did, and was not satisfied that the appellants had established a ground for judicial review. 4 The Notice of Appeal asserts that the Magistrate's decision was made without jurisdiction, and/or is affected by jurisdictional error. There are no particulars. The appellants were represented by counsel before the Magistrate but not in this Court. In the circumstances it is appropriate to treat them as relying on the grounds particularised in the amended application before the Federal Magistrate, which were drafted by counsel.
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