Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZMHS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 104
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) SZMHS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1638 of 2008
JACOBSON J
13 FEBRUARY 2009
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1638 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMHS
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER: 13 FEBRUARY 2009
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. 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 1638 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMHS
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: JACOBSON J
DATE: 13 FEBRUARY 2009
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
introduction 1 This is an appeal from orders made by Smith FM on 29 September 2008, dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 15 April 2008. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the appellant a protection visa. 2 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China. She claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution on political grounds. Her claims are set out in a statutory declaration, the terms of which are set out in the decision of the Tribunal at Appeal Book pages 129 to 131. Those claims are summarised in the decision of the Federal Magistrate at [2] and [3]. 3 In summary, the appellant claimed that she had conducted a small shop in her home town but that she had to close it due to a government project. She claimed that she and other shopkeepers did not receive compensation, but they were informed that money was available to compensate them. The appellant said that she was told, however, that corrupt local government officials had taken the money. She claimed that she and another local shopkeeper organised a protest which was suppressed by the police and that she and other protesters were arrested. She claimed that she was detained and interrogated and that she was forced to write a confession.
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