Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZNBB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 927
SZNBB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 402 of 2009
SIOPIS J
21 AUGUST 2009
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
general division NSD 402 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZNBB
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: SIOPIS J
DATE OF ORDER: 21 AUGUST 2009
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs to be taxed. 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 402 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZNBB
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: SIOPIS J
DATE: 21 AUGUST 2009
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant is a citizen of India who arrived in Australia on 18 May 2008 on a visitor's visa. On 27 June 2008, the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. 2 The appellant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution because of his political opinion arising from his involvement with the Congress Party in Assam state for over 20 years. He contended that he feared persecution by the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA). He claimed to have been kidnapped by the ULFA whilst he was residing in Assam. He then fled to Kolkata before departing for Australia. 3 A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 15 August 2008. An issue before the delegate was whether the appellant could relocate to another part of India. The delegate found the appellant had the option of relocating to another part of India. The delegate noted that the appellant had admitted that he had a "peaceful life" while living in Kolkata.
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