SZNIF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1256

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZNIF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1256

SZNIF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 791 of 2009

COLLIER J

4 NOVEMBER 2009

BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION NSD 791 of 2009

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZNIF

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: COLLIER J

DATE OF ORDER: 4 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 791 of 2009

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZNIF

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: COLLIER J

DATE: 4 NOVEMBER 2009

PLACE: BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against the decision of Barnes FM delivered on 16 July 2009 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 13 February 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 25 August 2008 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 4 November 2008. On 2 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 due to his Christian faith. He claimed that in India he faced serious harm from Muslims, Muslim fishermen and the Indian police. He complained that in the past, during riots between Christian and Hindus, Hindu national extremists had entered the house and beaten members of his family and that his sister had died and that although he reported the crime to the police they refused to investigate. He also claimed that Christian fishermen were targeted by Muslim fishermen and that many were forced to leave the area. He claimed that when the matter was reported to the authorities he was detained and he was accused of attacking Muslim fisherman. He claimed that the dispute was resolved when he paid a fine to the police. 4 He claimed that tensions between Muslims and Christians remained and that in December 2007 Christians were attacked by RSS supporters and Muslims after they were accused of converting Hindus and Muslims to Christianity. He claimed that a mob came for him and demanded that he surrender to the police or be killed. He claimed that he reported the matter to the police who falsely accused him of killing or being implicated in the murder of a Muslim fisherman. He claimed that the police told him that they had received orders from higher authorities to make a false case against him and that they were not able to protect him from the Muslims. He stated that they told him to leave India for good to escape the charges. The appellant stated that after he was released he went to Tamil Nadu and then Andhra Pradesh before leaving India for Australia.