Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZJNY v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 624
SZJNY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 15 of 2008
GILMOUR J
8 MAY 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 15 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZJNY
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: GILMOUR J
DATE OF ORDER: 8 MAY 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed.
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 15 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZJNY
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: GILMOUR J
DATE: 8 MAY 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of Federal Magistrate Raphael of 17 December 2007 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 30 August 2006. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant.
The Appellant's Claims 2 The appellant is a citizen of India. Before the Tribunal the appellant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution because of his political opinion. The appellant asserted that he had begun his association with a political party called Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam ("DMK") in Tamil Nadu in 1985, putting-up posters and doing odd jobs at election time. He then claimed to have moved his allegiance to its offshoot, the Maurmalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam ("MDMK") party in 1994 and assisted by conveying people to and from party meetings. 3 According to the appellant, the rival Ahila India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party ("AIADMK") was the ruling power, at the state level, in 2001 and contrived to destroy the MDMK and its leader, "Vaiko". The appellant stated that Vaiko was a supporter of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and was arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act after making speeches supporting that organisation in 2002. The AIADMK allegedly masterminded the arrest. The appellant claimed that AIADMK members began harassing MDMK members and sought to have them join their own party. The appellant was identified as a target as he had a large family network from which to draw recruits. He and his wife were threatened after he refused to transfer his allegiance. 4 The appellant stated that he and a friend agreed to join the AIADMK as a cover until Vaiko was released. He claimed that, when Vaiko was released in 2004, he was threatened by AIADMK members for attending a gathering to welcome the MDMK leader. When he approached the police, they allegedly responded by telling him to join the AIADMK. 5 The appellant said that he then decided to cease his political involvement, and he moved to Madras. However, due to the December 2004 tsunami in the area he returned home. He alleged that AIADMK supporters interfered with the provision of relief money to his family. 6 After moving between Kerala, Bangalore and Madras, the appellant ultimately moved to Australia. He claimed that the AIADMK is no longer in power and that the MDMK's former leader, Vaiko, has since switched allegiance to the AIADMK.
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