Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZJYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 337
SZJYR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2255 OF 2007
MIDDLETON J
28 FEBRUARY 2008
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2255 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZJYR
First Appellant
SZJYS
Second Appellant
SZJYT
Third Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MIDDLETON J
DATE OF ORDER: 28 FEBRUARY 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The first and second appellants pay the costs of the first respondent, fixed at $2,800.
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 2255 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZJYR
First Appellant
SZJYS
Second Appellant
SZJYT
Third Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MIDDLETON J
DATE: 28 FEBRUARY 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 29 October 2007 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') signed on 28 November 2006 and handed down on 12 December 2006. 2 The appellants are citizens of India, who arrived in Australia on 22 April 2006. On 2 June 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 31 August 2006. On 8 September 2006 the appellants applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The appellants, who are from Pune, are a husband and wife, and their 16 year old son. Only the appellant husband made claims under the Convention with the appellant wife and son 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