Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZLGS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 893
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437 SZLGS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 440 of 2008
REEVES J
17 JUNE 2008
DARWIN
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 440 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLGS
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: REEVES J
DATE OF ORDER: 17 JUNE 2008
WHERE MADE: DARWIN
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $2,300.00. 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 440 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLGS
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: REEVES J
DATE: 17 JUNE 2008
PLACE: DARWIN
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of Federal Magistrate Nicholls delivered on 13 May 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 14 August 2007. It 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 India. He was born on 7 June 1984 at Pulavanchi Village in the Thanjore District of the Tamil Nadu State of India. He arrived in Australia on 1 March 2007 and on 12 March 2007 he lodged an application for a protection visa. That application was refused by a delegate of the first respondent on 21 March 2007. On 12 April 2007, the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The appellant attended a hearing and gave evidence before the Tribunal on 2 July 2007. Upon the Tribunal affirming the decision of the delegate, the appellant lodged an application for review in the Federal Magistrates Court on 5 September 2007. He amended that application on 2 January 2008. 4 The appellant filed a statutory declaration in support of his visa application which set out his claims for protection. In summary, the appellant claimed that his father was a disaffected farmer who protested the low level of returns he received from the landlord of the family farm. As a result, he was arrested and jailed on fake charges, and beaten while he was in jail. He claimed that his father then became a member of the Communist Party of India and that on his release from jail he organised protests by other farmers against the landlords. He was subsequently blamed for the murder of some landlords and went into hiding. The appellant claimed that his mother and brother were taken to the Madukkur Police Station and beaten and tortured by the police in an attempt to locate his father. As a consequence his mother was hospitalised and later died and his brother escaped to another part of India. 5 According to the appellant, in June 2006 another landlord was murdered and the police thought his father was involved. As a consequence the appellant was taken into custody and beaten to force him to tell the police where his father was hiding. He was released without charge when his uncle and a lawyer came to the police station. However, he was re-arrested at his home at midnight three weeks later and sentenced to jail for one year on what he described as fake charges. With the help of his uncle and his lawyer the appellant was released on bail with a reporting condition in September 2006. He states that he then joined the Communist Party of India. He claimed that one day when he was reporting at the police station, a police officer (who was a friend of his uncle's) told him that the police intended to kill him to lure his father out of hiding. The appellant claimed that his uncle obtained a visa so that he could to come to Australia to avoid him being killed.
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