SZKQB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 883

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZKQB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 883

SZKQB, SZKQC and SZKQD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 159 of 2008

RARES J

7 MAY 2008

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 159 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZKQB

First Appellant

SZKQC

Second Appellant

SZKQD

Third Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: RARES J

DATE OF ORDER: 7 MAY 2008

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellants pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $2,200. 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 159 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZKQB

First Appellant

SZKQC

Second Appellant

SZKQD

Third Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: RARES J

DATE: 7 MAY 2008

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT) 1 This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing the appellant's application for constitutional writ relief against a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming decisions not to grant the appellants protection visas: SZKQB v Minister for Immigration [2008] FMCA 171. 2 The first appellant told me that he was representing himself and his wife and son, who are the second and third appellants. The wife and son relied upon the membership of the first appellant's family unit as being the basis on which they were entitled to refugee status and made no separate claims. The first appellant had claimed, in his application considered by the delegate, to have been targeted by opposition party members due to his support for the Bhartiya Janta Party ("BJP") in India, of which country the appellants are citizens. 3 The delegate found that the first appellant had provided no evidence to support his claim of membership of any political party and had not provided any details of political activities he had been involved in. Accordingly, the delegate was not satisfied that he had been actively involved in politics or was a member of the BJP. In those circumstances the delegate was not satisfied that the first appellant was at risk of persecution because of his political activities. The delegate also rejected the first appellant's claims that his business had been set on fire and that he had been attacked physically three times. 4 The delegate said that no detailed information such as dates and place of any such attacks had been provided by the first appellant, nor had he provided evidence such as medical certificates, hospital records or copies of complaints lodged with the police to support his claims. The delegate said that he had stated in his application that he did not know why he had been targeted when other people were also working for the party. Last, the delegate noted that, regardless of the veracity of the appellant's claims to have been persecuted on the grounds of his political opinion, he would be able to relocate to a safe place either elsewhere in Gujarat, the State in which he lived, or elsewhere within India. The delegate noted that the first appellant had successfully run a business for many years and had travelled to Australia and Europe. He was a Hindu, a religious group which made up 80 per cent of the Indian population, and would therefore be able to relocate within India without encountering religious barriers.