SZLHI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1092

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLHI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1092

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Applicant S20/2002 (2003) 198 ALR 59; [2003] HCA 30 SZLHI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 468 of 2008

REEVES J

24 JULY 2008

Darwin

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 468 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZLHI

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: REEVES J DATE OF ORDER: 24 JULY 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 468 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZLHI

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: REEVES J

DATE: 24 JULY 2008

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of Federal Magistrate Scarlett delivered on 19 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 16 August 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 Nepal who had travelled to Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Germany in his capacity as the managing director of the "Nepal Export Gallery" in Kathmandu, prior to coming to Australia. He arrived in Australia on 9 January 2007 on a tourist visa and lodged an application for a protection visa a few weeks later, on 20 February 2007. A delegate of the first respondent refused that application on 2 April 2007 and on 30 April 2007 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The appellant lodged a statement which set out the basis of his claim to fear persecution in Nepal. Essentially, the appellant claimed that as he and his family were active supporters of the National Democratic Party ('the RRP') and also the monarchy in Nepal he was targeted by 'maoist terrorists'(or Nepal Communist Party supporters). He stated that he received two letters of demand from Maoists, one for NRS800,000 in September 2004 and another for NRS500,000 in March 2006, both of which threatened him with violence if he did not pay. 4 The appellant asserted that he did not pay any money to the Maoists and that he received further threats and was assaulted by a large group of Maoists in November 2006 as he came over a bridge on his motorbike. He stated that he was beaten badly (at a time when he had already obtained his Australian visa) and left for dead; but that his father had him treated in hospital under the guise of him having been injured in a traffic accident. He stated this was because "Maoist were calling at my home and threatening that if anybody informed to police then they will kill all the family members". The appellant said that he subsequently tried to get help from the "police administration" but they would not help him. He stated that he had to leave Nepal, and leave behind his aged parents, and his wife and young daughter, because the Maoists would "never forgive" him.