Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZMIS v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 167 MIGRATION – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – appeal from judgment of Federal Magistrates Court – procedural fairness – judicial review Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 424AA, 424A, 425
SZLQD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 739 SZLXI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 103 ALD 589 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SGLB (2004) 207 ALR 12 NAYU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 528 SZMIS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1859 of 2008
MARSHALL J
27 february 2009
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1859 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMIS
Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER: 27 February 2009
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, fixed at $2,300. 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 1859 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMIS
Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: Marshall J
DATE: 27 february 2009
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant appeals from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court which dismissed his application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent not to grant the appellant a protection visa. 2 The appellant is a citizen of India. He claimed to fear persecution by reason of his political opinion. He said he was "an active social worker" in the Bharatiya Janata Party ("BJP"). 3 In particular, the appellant made the following claims: · He received threats to kill from political opponents. · On 12 August 2003 he and his wife were attacked at a bus stop by a group of political opponents belonging to a Muslim party. The appellant reported this incident to the police but did not receive protection from them. · The appellant was threatened with violence to withdraw his complaint to the police and did withdraw it. · The appellant then moved house but was still threatened by his attackers. · He was attacked again after obtaining a visa to leave 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