Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZLEF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 843
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Sathiyanathan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 210 SZLEF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 473 of 2008
REEVES J
6 JUNE 2008
DARWIN
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 473 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLEF
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: REEVES J
DATE OF ORDER: 6 JUNE 2008
WHERE MADE: DARWIN
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 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 473 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLEF
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: REEVES J
DATE: 6 JUNE 2008
PLACE: DARWIN
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of Federal Magistrate Cameron delivered on 18 March 2008, which dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). The Tribunal's decision was delivered on 12 July 2007 and affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant.
BACKGROUND – SUMMARY OF FACTS 2 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China ('China'). He came to Australia on 26 February 2007 and lodged an application for a protection visa on 1 March 2007. That application was refused by the Minister's delegate on 24 March 2007. Upon the Tribunal affirming the delegate's decision, the appellant sought judicial review of that decision before the Federal Magistrates Court in an application dated 24 April 2007. 3 In a statement submitted with his application for a protection visa the Appellant claimed that he commenced practicing Falun Gong at the end of 1997 when he met a Ms Yang who was a Falun Gong practitioner. He said that in September 2002, after he had 'clarified the truth to others about Falun Gong' he was arrested by police and detained for two months. He was later forced to denounce Falun Gong. He was kept under surveillance after his release. In 2006, he began to work as a seaman which created a chance to leave China. When the vessel he was working on berthed at Port Kembla in South Australia, he failed to return from shore leave and has remained in Australia since.
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