Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZNFS v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 919
SZNFS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 406 of 2009
EDMONDS J
20 AUGUST 2009
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION NSD 406 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZNFS
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: EDMONDS J
DATE OF ORDER: 20 AUGUST 2009
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's 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
GENERAL DIVISION NSD 406 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZNFS
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: EDMONDS J
DATE: 20 AUGUST 2009
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court (Nicholls FM) ([2009] FMCA 359) dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the second respondent ('the Tribunal') affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent ('the Minister') to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa.
BACKGROUND 2 The appellant is a citizen of Indonesia. He arrived in Australia on 29 April 2008 travelling on a sub-class 456 temporary business visa. 3 On 7 August 2008 he lodged an application for a protection (Class XA) visa. In that application he claimed to fear persecution in Indonesia on the basis that he and the woman whom he described as his wife in that application were of different religions, the appellant being a Muslim and the wife being a Christian. The application purported to include the wife as a member of the family unit. The wife had earlier arrived in Australia and had herself been refused a protection visa by way of a separate application which she had made. 4 On 8 August 2008, the delegate wrote to the appellant indicating that the wife had previously been refused a protection visa and, as such, was prevented under s 48A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act') from making another protection visa application and/or being included as a member of a family unit in a subsequent application. The letter indicated that the Department would initiate an assessment of the application to be included as a member of the family unit against the guidelines relating to s 48B of the Act. 5 On 20 August 2008, the delegate wrote to the wife indicating that her matter would not be referred to the Minister for consideration under s 48B. 6 On 25 September 2008, the delegate refused the appellant's application for a protection visa. 7 On 20 October 2008, the appellant (but not the wife) applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision. 8 On 9 December 2008, the appellant attended a hearing before the Tribunal. 9 Following the hearing, the appellant made a written submission which was received on 23 December 2008. 10 On 21 January 2009 the Tribunal handed down its decision affirming the decision of the delegate.
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