Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZJZV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 628
SZJZV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 2544 of 2007
GILMOUR J
8 MAY 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2544 of 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZJZV
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. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $2,900.00.
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 2544 of 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZJZV
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 Nicholls of 11 December 2007 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") signed on 30 November 2006 and handed down on 19 December 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.
Procedural History 2 The appellant is a citizen of India who arrived in Australia on 2 May 2006. On 29 May 2006 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 24 June 2006. On 20 July 2006 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 In his protection visa application, the appellant claimed to fear persecution from a criminal gang referred to as "rowdies", and more specifically from the mastermind of this group, Mr Swami Ji. The appellant stated that he was living in Chennai when a murder occurred at a local temple in September 2004. The victim had allegedly become aware of the misuse of certain charitable funds controlled by Mr Swami Ji. 4 According to the appellant, he became aware of the hideout of the rowdies and passed this information to the police. He claimed that as a consequence, he received death threats from them and promptly went into hiding. 5 At the hearing, the appellant raised the additional claim that in or about 2000 he had fallen in love with a Hindu woman whose father wished to kill him because of his Catholic faith. The appellant alleged that as a result he had been forced to move residence constantly until his departure from India in 2006.
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