Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZLTG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1317
SZLTG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1014 of 2008
RARES J
19 AUGUST 2008
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1014 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLTG
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: RARES J
DATE OF ORDER: 19 AUGUST 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal is dismissed with costs. 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 1014 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLTG
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: RARES J
DATE: 19 AUGUST 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (REVISED FROM THE JUDGMENT) 1 This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court, refusing the appellant's claim for constitutional writ relief against a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, affirming a decision of the delegate of the Minister not to grant the appellant a protection visa: SZLTG v Minister for Immigration [2008] FMCA 835. 2 The appellant is a citizen of India, who came to Australia in April 2007 and applied for a protection visa on 17 May 2007. The delegate refused to grant the visa in early July 2007, and the tribunal affirmed that decision on 30 October 2007.
The Appellant's Claims in his Protection Visa Application 3 In essence, the appellant claimed that he had been responsible for a construction site on which building work – being a large water tank – had collapsed, killing two workers. The workers were of a lower caste than he. He was proceeded against in the Indian courts, which found that he had not been responsible for the accident. In his application for a protection visa the appellant said that the family members of the deceased had tried to settle the matter out of court because they wanted a large sum of money from him, but that he had refused and asked that the matter proceed through the Court. 4 After the decision was given in his favour, the appellant claimed that the deceased's relatives had asserted he had bribed the judge. He claimed that the relatives were very poor, but from a strongly bonded community in the Dalit caste, and that they tried to kill him because he refused to give money. He claimed that the whole Dalit community were a threat to him, and that they had very strong support from politicians. He also claimed that the Indian authorities would not protect him because the workplace accident had become a very big issue in his city, and the lower caste minority were upset with the result of the court case. 5 The appellant claimed that after the Court decision there had been two attempts on his life: one in which the brakes of his car had been altered so that he hit a tree while driving; and the second, in which someone had tried to shoot him but the bullet missed. He claimed that the police had done nothing. He claimed he had sold his business and moved to another city, and then came to Australia, leaving his wife and daughter in India.
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