Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZLBC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 728
SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152 Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437 SZLBC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 260 OF 2008
WEINBERG J
21 MAY 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 260 OF 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLBC
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: WEINBERG J
DATE OF ORDER: 21 MAY 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs, to be taxed in default of agreement. 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 260 OF 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLBC
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: WEINBERG J
DATE: 21 MAY 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BACKGROUND 1 On 13 June 2006 the appellant, a citizen of Pakistan, arrived in Australia. He applied for a protection visa a month later, on 12 July 2006. His application was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 18 September 2006. He applied for review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT") on 11 October 2006. He attended a hearing before the RRT on 19 December 2006. 2 The RRT made its decision on 28 May 2007 and provided a written copy of its reasons to the appellant on 19 June 2007. It affirmed the decision of the delegate. 3 Briefly, the appellant claimed that he came from a mixed Shi'a and Sunni Muslim background and leant towards the Shi'a faith of his mother's family. He had a cousin who was an active and prominent supporter of the Shi'as in their district. In June 2003 his cousin was shot and killed. Two persons were convicted of that murder in 2005. The appellant claimed that he and his family had been threatened by those responsible for the murder prior to their arrest, and that he had relocated to Lahore to avoid their threats. He also claimed to have suffered threats of harm and harassment from members of the Sunni organisation known as the SSP, a body of violent proponents of Sunni supremacy in Pakistan. 4 The RRT accepted the appellant's account of the violent nature of the SSP. However, it did not accept that he was a witness of truth in relation to his own claimed history. It set out several points of dissatisfaction with his evidence and concluded that he had "created his claims in order to obtain the visa sought". In stating its conclusion, the RRT reminded itself of the need for special care in assessing the credibility of applicants for protection. 5 The RRT stated that it rejected the appellant's evidence in its "totality". It did not accept that he was in fact a Shi'a, or that he had suffered harm, as he claimed. It found that his cousin had not been murdered by SSP supporters by reason of his Shi'a religion, as the appellant claimed, and that the appellant had not gone into hiding. It concluded that he was actually a Sunni, and on this basis found that he did not face any real chance of persecution for a Convention reason if he were to return to Pakistan.
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