SZDVO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 618

Background 2 The appellant is a citizen of Nepal who arrived in Australia on 24 September 2003. On 16 October 2003 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 3 November 2003. On 26 November 2003 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision on 22 April 2004. The appellant unsuccessfully sought judicial review of that decision in the Federal Magistrates Court. However, on 9 March 2006, Wilcox J allowed an appeal, set aside the Federal Magistrate's decision and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Tribunal. The matter was reconsidered by that Tribunal which again affirmed the decision of the delegate. 4 The appellant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution from the authorities and police because of his past history as a Maoist. 5 The appellant said he became a member of the Communist Party of Nepal in 2000 and was involved in secret meetings in various locations. He claimed that he organised various meetings and small conferences with those interested in joining the Maoist movement. He alleged that he was arrested by policein March 2002 and detained for five days during which time he was physically abused. He claimed that on the sixth day a Maoist group attacked the police post and while the police had abandoned their post, he was able to escape. The appellant alleged that in April 2002, while in an open meeting in Chapakot, the Nepalese army attacked, and that shots fired from a helicopter killed four of his friends. The appellant claimed that in 2003 the Nepalese Police had issued a warrant for his arrest due to his alleged Maoist activities. 6 He also claimed to fear persecution by the State, the Maoists and Hindu fundamentalists, by reason of his Christian religion; his conversion from Hinduism to Christianity and the duty to proselytize imposed on him by his religious beliefs and his renunciation of Maoism. The appellant, through his representative, claimed that the law in Nepal provides for fines and imprisonment for conversion and proselytizing. 7 The appellant claimed that in Australia he met Nepalese Christians who introduced him to the Christian faith. As a result he claimed to have converted from Hinduism to Christianity. He claimed he no longer believed in the Maoist philosophy.