SZMSM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 587

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZMSM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 587

SZMSM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 169 of 2009

NORTH J

19 MAY 2009

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 169 of 2009

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZMSM

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: NORTH J

DATE OF ORDER: 19 MAY 2009

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal fixed at $3,600. 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 169 of 2009

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZMSM

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: NORTH J

DATE: 19 MAY 2009

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Before the Court is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court, delivered on 13 February 2009: SZMSM v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2009] FMCA 84. The Federal Magistrate dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal), which was signed on 17 July 2008 and which affirmed a decision of the delegate of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (the Minister), not to grant the appellant a protection visa. The claims of the appellant are clearly summarised by the Federal Magistrate, as is the proceeding before the Tribunal and the decision of the Tribunal. I rely on that description of those matters and consequently will summarise, very briefly, the nature of the appellant's case. 2 The appellant claimed to be a citizen of India of the Muslim faith and to be a supporter of the Congress Party. He said he was targeted by those supporting the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (the BJP). He claimed that he was asked to join the BJP and when he refused he was threatened and attacked. He claimed that he reported the matter to the police but they took no action because he was a Muslim. He claimed a fear of persecution if he were to return to India on the grounds of his religion and his political opinion.