Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZLNY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 769
SZLNY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 414 of 2008
COWDROY J
26 MAY 2008
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 414 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLNY
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J DATE OF ORDER: 26 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 414 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLNY
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE: 26 MAY 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant appeals from the decision of Federal Magistrate Scarlett delivered on 10 March 2008 which dismissed an application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') handed down on 25 September 2007. The Tribunal had affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship ('the Minister') not to grant the appellant a Protection (Class XA) visa ('the protection visa').
BACKGROUND 2 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China ('the PRC') who arrived in Australia on 25 April 2007. On 27 April 2007 the appellant lodged an application for the protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. A delegate of the Minister refused such application on 23 May 2007. On 22 June 2007 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate's decision. 3 The appellant claimed to have well-founded fear of persecution resulting from her practice of Falun Gong. The appellant claimed that she had been arrested and detained for six months by authorities in the PRC because of her practice of Falun Gong. The appellant claimed that she 'suffered from ill treatment' during her period of detention. The appellant claimed that following her release she feared that she would be jailed again. The appellant claimed that she bribed a government official to obtain a passport. 4 Before the Tribunal the appellant claimed that she rarely practised Falun Gong in Australia because of work pressures.
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