Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZMEI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1649 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Attorney-General NSW v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Epeabaka (2001) 206 CLR 128 SZATV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 237 ALR 634 SZMEI v Minister for Immigration [2008] FMCA 971 SZMEI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1138 of 2008
REEVES J
7 NOVEMBER 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1138 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMEI
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: REEVES J
DATE OF ORDER: 7 NOVEMBER 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
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. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1138 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMEI
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: REEVES J
DATE: 7 NOVEMBER 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of Federal Magistrate Scarlett of 3 July 2008, dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') of 8 April 2008. 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 on the basis that the appellant was able to reasonably and safely relocate to other areas of Pakistan. The appellant disputes this decision and contends that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the appellant's evidence and arguments on this subject.
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