Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZLYI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1809
SZLYI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1362 of 2008
MIDDLETON J
18 NOVEMBER 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1362 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLYI
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MIDDLETON J
DATE OF ORDER: 18 NOVEMBER 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed at $2,600.00. 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 1362 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZLYI
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MIDDLETON J
DATE: 18 NOVEMBER 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of Federal Magistrate Smith of 11 August 2008 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') of 15 January 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.
BACKGROUND 2 The appellant is a citizen of India who arrived in Australia on 25 June 2007. On 31 July 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 27 August 2007. On 17 September 2007 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 Before the Tribunal the appellant claimed to have written a number of articles on the Gujarat riots during 2002 which were in favour of Muslims and exposed the involvement of politicians and others in the violence. The appellant claimed that he was subjected to threats of abduction and harm and intimidation from the Hindu community due to the inflammatory nature of the articles. He stated that he suffered physical and mental abuse and on one occasion his house was ransacked and he was beaten. He claimed that he was denied protection from the police and thereafter he travelled to Dubai where he remained for one year before returning to India in the hope that things had changed. He stated that he was subjected to further threats following the publication of an article about a bomb blast in a Mosque and without further assistance of his family, he was forced to leave the country.
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