Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZLOC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1662
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) SZLOC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FMCA 930 referred to
SZLOC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRAITON AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1173 of 2008
TRACEY J
14 NOVEMBER 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1173 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLOC
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRAITON AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: TRACEY J DATE OF ORDER: 14 NOVEMBER 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be 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 1173 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLOC
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRAITON AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: TRACEY J
DATE: 14 NOVEMBER 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate delivered on 11 July 2008 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") handed down on 2 October 2007: see SZLOC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FMCA 930. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship not to grant a protection visa to the appellant.
BACKGROUND 2 The appellant is a citizen of India, from the district of Kerala, who entered Australia on 10 April 2007. On 19 April 2007 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 31 May 2007. On 27 June 2007 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The appellant claimed fear of persecution on the basis of his political opinion. The appellant claimed that he was involved in the Student Federation of India (SFI), the student wing of the Communist Party (Marxist) ("CP(M)") for a number of years. He claimed that the SFI comes under the Democratic Youth Federation of India which is part of the CP(M). The appellant claimed that he faced serious harassment on a number of occasions from the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad which is the student wing of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The appellant provided the Tribunal with two membership "cards" for the SFI. He claimed that he erected posters, assisted with doorknocking campaigns for the SFI and stood for a student representative election while in Year 8 at high school. 4 The appellant claimed that he and/or his family had been attacked in December 1995 and in 2006. He said that in the 2006 attack his right leg was injured and showed the Tribunal a scar on his knee. He provided the Tribunal with a doctor's certificate which referred to "traumatic injuries – both legs from 5.2 – 06 to 25.2 – 06."
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