Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZKRV v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 201 SZKRV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2254 OF 2007
JACOBSON J
29 FEBRUARY 2008
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALESDISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2254 OF 2007
BETWEEN: SZKRV
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER: 29 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.
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 WALESDISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2254 OF 2007
BETWEEN: SZKRV
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: JACOBSON J
DATE: 29 FEBRUARY 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from orders made by Smith FM on 29 October 2007. His Honour dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the appellant a protection visa. The decision of the Tribunal was dated 16 April 2007. 2 The appellant claimed to be a citizen of India and the Tribunal dealt with her claims on that basis. The appellant claimed to have a well‑founded fear of persecution in India, for her political opinion or by reason of her membership of a particular social group. The appellant claimed to be a lesbian woman and she claimed that she became a member of the Trinamul Congress Party in India where she met a woman, whose name I do not need to mention. 3 She claims that she and her friend were thrown out of the Trinamul Congress Party in 2002 when they were photographed together and their photographs were made public. She claimed that she and her friend continued to live at home with their families, but that they saw each other secretly. She also claimed that she was thrown out of her parents' home at the end of 2005 and that she came to Australia in 2006 when her friend provided her with some money to be able to do so. 4 The Tribunal accepted that sexual relations between women is illegal in India. The Tribunal also accepted that homosexuals face discrimination in employment and before the law. The Tribunal also accepted that lesbians form a particular social group in India. 5 However the Tribunal did not accept the appellant as a witness of truth for the reasons set out in the statement of decision and reasons, dated 16 April 2007. The substance of the Tribunal's reasons may be found in the paragraph which appears at p 103 in the appeal book, as follows: As I do not accept the applicant is a witness of truth, I do not accept the applicant is a lesbian or is or was in a lesbian relationship with [S]. It follows I do not accept she and/or [S] were dismissed from the Trinamul Congress Party or that she was taunted or harmed by her family or by society or that the police refused to assist her.
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