Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZLMB v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1187
SZLMB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 917 of 2008
GORDON J
11 AUGUST 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 917 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLMB
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: GORDON J DATE OF ORDER: 11 AUGUST 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal fixed in the sum of $1,500.00. 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 917 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLMB
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: GORDON J
DATE: 11 AUGUST 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against an order of Federal Magistrate Emmett of 30 May 2008 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 13 September 2007. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship ("the first respondent") to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)("the Act").
PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 The appellant is a citizen of Nepal who first entered Australia on 6 February 2007 on a visitor's visa issued on 10 January 2007. On 19 March 2007, the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, as it was then known. The appellant's protection visa application was summarised by the Federal Magistrate at [14]: In a statement provided in support of her visa application, the [appellant] claimed she was in the Nepali Congress Party since she was at school and "strongly opposed the Maoists' activities and their principle". She claimed she and her husband had been subject to threats and attempted extortion since August 1998, resulting in her husband leaving for overseas in 2003. The [appellant] claimed that she requested her husband return as a result of threats from Maoists. The [appellant] claimed that in September 2004 her husband returned at her request and gave money to the Maoists "due to the fear of being killed." The [appellant] claimed that Maoists continued to terrorise and attack her. The [appellant] claimed that in order to save her life she went to Kathmandu and lived with her brother for a year before she came to Australia. 3 The first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 14 May 2007. On 12 June 2007, the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision.
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