SZNNI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1232

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZNNI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1232

SZNNI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 749 of 2009

COLLIER J

2 NOVEMBER 2009

BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION NSD 749 of 2009

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZNNI

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: COLLIER J

DATE OF ORDER: 2 NOVEMBER 2009

WHERE MADE: BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

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

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION NSD 749 of 2009

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZNNI

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: COLLIER J

DATE: 2 NOVEMBER 2009

PLACE: BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against the decision of Nicholls FM delivered on 1 July 2009 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") signed on 31 March 2009. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant.

BACKGROUND 2 The appellant is a citizen of India who arrived in Australia on 9 July 2008. On 18 August 2008 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. A delegate of the Minister refused the application for a protection visa on 3 December 2008. On 30 December 2008 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The appellant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his religion as a Catholic and his involvement in the Kerala Catholic Youth Movement (KCYM). He claimed that he was the president of the KCYM Church Committee of his local church from 2002 to 2005 during which time he was also a member of the Church Executive Council. He claimed that he faced threats from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) and from the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), the youth wing of the CPI(M). He stated that the DYFI could not get a foothold in his area as most of the youth were associated with the KCYM and that he and his associates were physically assaulted by members of the DYFI on many occasions. In particular he claimed that he was assaulted in October 2002 while waiting near a bus stop, sustaining spinal injuries and requiring treatment in hospital for 28 days. He also claimed that he was attacked in March 2008 by members of the CPI(M), which resulted in him being hospitalised for 15 days. 4 The appellant further claimed that he was detained by the police on two separate occasions. On the first occasion, in September 2004, he was detained for 6 days and tortured for taking part in a protest after the murder of a Catholic priest the previous month. The second arrest occurred in July 2007 following protests against a book being published by the Kerala authorities. 5 The appellant claimed that he could not return to India as there would be no protection available to him because the CPI(M) was ruling Kerala.