Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZLJI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 617
SZLJI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 251 of 2009
RARES J
18 MAY 2009
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 251 of 2009
BETWEEN: SZLJI
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: RARES J
DATE OF ORDER: 18 MAY 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 251 of 2009
BETWEEN: SZLJI
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: RARES J
DATE: 18 MAY 2009
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT) 1 The appellant is a citizen of India who arrived in Australia on 11 May 2007 and shortly afterwards applied to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for a protection visa. Later in May 2007, the delegate refused to grant the visa and the appellant sought review of that decision in the tribunal. The tribunal initially affirmed that decision but, by consent, the Federal Magistrate's Court in 2008 set its decision aside and remitted the matter to the tribunal to be determined according to law. A differently constituted tribunal gave the decision the subject of these proceedings.
The Appellant's initial lack of claims 2 In his original application for a protection visa, the appellant did not provide any basis upon which his claim to protection should be considered. All he did in that application was to suggest that he would submit the evidence in support of his claims later. He did, however, write a two page statement to the department setting out some facts about him and made the bare claim that if he was returned to his country he would be killed by enemies. The delegate proceeded, by relying simply on the material before her, on the basis of s 54(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), to refuse to grant a visa without giving the applicant a further opportunity to make oral or written submissions.
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