Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZLUY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1273
SZLUY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 949 of 2008
GILMOUR J
19 AUGUST 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 949 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLUY
Appellant
AND: minister for immigration and citizenship
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: GILMOUR J DATE OF ORDER: 19 august 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondents costs fixed at $2,300. 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 949 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLUY
Appellant
AND: minister for immigration and citizenship
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: GILMOUR J
DATE: 19 august 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 13 June 2008 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") handed down on 4 December 2007. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China who arrived in Australia on 2 May 2007. On 10 May 2007 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 4 June 2007. On 9 July 2007 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 Before the Tribunal, the appellant claimed that she was persecuted due to her breach of the one child policy in China. She claimed that she was forced to have an abortion and that she was sterilised via a 'tubal ligation' operation against her will. The appellant claimed she was fined an amount of $5000 and that the police took a significant number of her possessions to be auctioned for the payment of the fine. She claimed that the amount from the auction was not enough to satisfy the fine and therefore the doors and windows of her house were taken by the Police, making it uninhabitable. The appellant claimed that she was subjected to the "water test" to ensure that her tubes were successfully blocked. The appellant claimed to fear further persecution if she were to return to China.
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