Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZNJG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 928
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510 NADR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 167 SZNJG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 695 of 2009
REEVES J
20 August 2009
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 695 of 2009
general division
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZNJG
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: REEVES J
DATE OF ORDER: 20 august 2009
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed.
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 695 of 2009
general division
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZNJG
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: REEVES J
DATE: 20 august 2009
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate delivered on 18 June 2009, dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') of 25 February 2009. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship ('the Minister') to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant.
factual summary 2 The appellant is a citizen of India who arrived in Australia on 9 July 2008. On 21 August 2008 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. The appellant attended an interview on 14 October 2008 with a departmental officer for the purposes of assessing his application. A delegate of the Minister refused that application on 27 October 2008. On 21 November 2008 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 In his application for a protection visa, the appellant claimed that he joined the Students Federation of India ('SFI'), which is the students' wing of the Communist Party, during his time at university. He was elected as the Pallithura Branch Secretary of the Democratic Youth Federation of India ('DYFI') and after his studies he remained an active member of the Communist Party. In 1998 he joined the Kerala Catholic Youth Movement ('KCYM') and, with the support of the Communist Party, he became supervisor of a construction company in 2000. He was also nominated as a member of the Communist Party in that year. On one occasion, while attending a Party meeting, members of the Congress Party threw bombs into the meeting, injuring a number of people. Subsequently, he concentrated on his KCYM activities and was elected as a member of the central committee of KCYM in 2006. He then rejoined the Communist Party in 2006 and he, and others, were attacked by Congress Party members, resulting in him being hospitalised for four days. He claimed that there followed a revenge attack and his home village became violent, so he left and went to Bangalore for 3 months. 4 After the problems were partially solved he returned to his home area, however, the violence reoccurred and he claimed his hands were severely injured in an attack by the Bharathiya Janatha Party ('BJP') members. In 2007, after he protested against the pollution from a clay factory, which factory was supported by the BJP, his family's home was set on fire and his two brothers were killed. After this, he claimed a bomb was thrown at him while he was riding his bike and he was hospitalised for 12 days. He claimed he was attacked again while in hospital. He also claimed his family was threatened and death threats were made against him. After he left the hospital he went to Chennai for five months, during which time he was told about World Youth Day in Australia. He claimed he returned home to say goodbye to his parents, however, the rebels were waiting for him so he returned to Chennai and then fled to Australia.
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