Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZKPN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 698
SZKPN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 2507 of 2007
COWDROY J
19 MAY 2008
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2507 of 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZKPN
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE OF ORDER: 19 MAY 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The Appellant pay the costs of the First Respondent. 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 2507 of 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZKPN
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE: 19 MAY 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant appeals from the decision of Federal Magistrate Turner delivered on 6 December 2007 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') handed down on 17 April 2007. The Tribunal's decision affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship ('the Minister') to refuse to grant a Protection (Class XA) visa ('the protection visa') to the appellant.
BACKGROUND 2 The appellant is a citizen of the Philippines who arrived in Australia on 18 August 2006. On 29 September 2006 the appellant lodged an application for the protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. A delegate of the Minister refused the protection visa application on 9 December 2006. On 2 January 2007 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate's decision. 3 The appellant claimed that she had well-founded fear of persecution resulting from her political opinion. The appellant claimed to have been politically active as a student and as a youth councillor in her home town, but her parents did not approve of her political ambitions and wished for her to stop her political activities. While she was young, the appellant complied with her family's wishes. 4 The appellant claimed that her uncle was shot dead in April 2001 because of his support for a mayoral candidate in the upcoming mayoral election. The appellant claimed that this event compelled her to become active in politics again. The appellant claimed that she began attending rallies against the rival political party. She also claimed that she attended the rival political party's campaign meetings and at such meetings would accuse the party of having 'something to do with my uncle's death'. 5 The appellant claimed that her favoured candidate lost the election. The appellant claimed that she continued to protest against the newly elected mayor, and as a result she was subjected to continuous monitoring and received 'hate mails and death threats thru [sic] mails and phone calls'. The appellant claimed that she was forced to relocate within metropolitan Manila in July 2001. 6 The appellant claimed that she returned to her home town in 2004 to actively participate in the upcoming local elections. The appellant claimed that after her return she was attacked and raped by her opponents. The appellant claimed that her assailants told her that the police were 'controlled' by the mayor and that 'even if I tell the police they will not believe me'. 7 The appellant claimed that she fled to Thailand but was forced to return to the Philippines because of 'visa problem'. The appellant claimed that after her return to the Philippines her parents began receiving death threats. The appellant claimed that she was forced to again move within Manila. The appellant claimed that the death threats 'did not stop', and as a consequence she left the Philippines.
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