Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZLTZ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1192 SZLTZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 942 of 2008
GORDON J
12 AUGUST 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 942 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLTZ
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: GORDON J DATE OF ORDER: 12 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 to be taxed in default of agreement. 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 942 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLTZ
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: GORDON J
DATE: 12 AUGUST 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against an order of Federal Magistrate Lloyd-Jones of 4 June 2008 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 20 November 2007. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent ("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 the People's Republic of China ("China") who first entered Australian on 3 May 2007. On 10 May 2007, the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the first respondent. The first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 23 July 2007. 3 On 23 August 2007 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. On 20 November 2007 the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the first respondent. The appellant sought review of the Tribunal's decision and on 4 June 2008, by Order of Lloyd-Jones FM, the Court dismissed the application. 4 Before the Tribunal, the appellant claimed to fear persecution in China as she claimed to be a Falun Gong practitioner. The appellant informed the Tribunal that she was introduced to Falun Gong by a friend in China in 2003 and began to practise at home and with others in a public park. The appellant claimed that she was dismissed from work after her employer suspected her of practising Falun Gong. The appellant claimed that she had not practised Falun Gong in Australia.
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