Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZLIC v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 790
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 36(2)(a) SZLIC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 385 OF 2008
EDMONDS J
30 MAY 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 385 OF 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLIC
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: EDMONDS J
DATE OF ORDER: 30 MAY 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of $1,400.00 Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 385 OF 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLIC
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: EDMONDS J
DATE: 30 MAY 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction 1 This is an appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court ([2008] FMCA 230) dismissing an application for review of a decision of the second respondent ('the Tribunal') affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent ('the Minister') refusing the appellant's application for a protection (Class XA) visa.
Background 2 The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia on 11 March 2004. On 29 May 2007, the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa. 3 The appellant claimed to fear persecution in Bangladesh because of his political opinion and religion. He claimed that in 1994 he became involved with Jamat-I-Islam ('JI'), an Islamist political party in Bangladesh, while he was studying at college. In order to become a member of JI, the appellant claimed that he was required to participate in and attend various 'Muslim activities' and that during some of the JI activities, the appellant witnessed 'some fights, including bombings, shootings and cutting the tendon at the back ankle with daggers and many other acts of violence'. However, he states that he became disillusioned with JI and no longer wanted to participate in the party. The appellant claimed to have found out that he was in danger because he had witnessed criminal acts committed by members of JI. He then relocated to India to study for four years. 4 Upon his return to Bangladesh in 2002, he learned he was going to be called as a witness in a case against JI. As a result, he was targeted by JI and believed he would be killed if he told the truth. The appellant claimed he left Bangladesh for Australia to avoid being killed and that he fears being killed by JI members should he return to Bangladesh. 5 On 5 June 2007, the delegate refused to grant the appellant a protection visa and the appellant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision on 14 June 2007. On 8 August 2007, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the appellant a protection visa.
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