Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZMPX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 178
SZMPX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1993 of 2008
COWDROY J
4 MARCH 2009
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1993 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMPX
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE OF ORDER: 4 MARCH 2009
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The Appellant pay the costs of the First Respondent in the amount of $2,700 pursuant to O 62 r 40C(4) and Item 43H of Schedule 2 of the Federal Court Rules. 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 1993 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMPX
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE: 4 MARCH 2009
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant appeals from a decision of Federal Magistrate Cameron delivered on 8 December 2008 which dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') handed down on 8 July 2008. The Tribunal's decision affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship ('the Minister') to refuse to grant a Protection (Class XA) visa to the appellant.
BACKGROUND 2 The appellant, who was born on 23 January 1978, is a citizen of Nepal. He arrived in Australia on 7 November 2007. On 11 December 2007 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. A delegate of the Minister refused the application for a protection visa on 15 February 2008. 3 On 11 March 2008 the appellant applied for a review of the decision to reject his protection visa application. On 31 March 2008 the appellant was invited to attend a hearing of the Tribunal on 19 May 2008. He duly attended on that day and answered questions. 4 The appellant claimed to fear persecution in Nepal on the basis of his political views and affiliations and his status as part of a particular social group. He claimed he was a distant relative of the former Nepalese monarch and, like his father, a member of the pro-monarchist Rastriya Prajatantra Party ('RPP'). The appellant further claimed that he was the director of his father's construction firm and that he was subjected to extortion demands by Maoist insurgents in June 2005 and was detained by them for three days. He claimed that he was able to pay only 40% of the 1,000,000 Nepalese rupee demand. The appellant was allegedly forced to move around Nepal with his family for fear of further reprisals. The appellant said that the last demand made by the Maoists in relation to the unpaid portion of the extortion demand was three and a half years before his Tribunal hearing. The appellant also contended that the social group of businessmen (and in particular construction industry businessmen) were subject to persecution in Nepal.
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