Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZNMZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1263
SZNMZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 802 of 2009
COLLIER J
5 NOVEMBER 2009
BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION NSD 802 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZNMZ
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COLLIER J
DATE OF ORDER: 5 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 802 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZNMZ
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COLLIER J
DATE: 5 NOVEMBER 2009
PLACE: BRISBANE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against the decision of Nicholls FM delivered on 15 July 2009 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 26 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 26 August 2008. On 9 October 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 8 January 2009. On 5 February 2009 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The appellant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution from a local leader of the Rashtreeya Swayamsevak Sangam (RSS) and his associates due to his inability to pay outstanding debts. He claimed that he was the owner of a business in which he sold and serviced motor bikes. He stated that he borrowed heavily from the Bank and then from the RSS leader, who he knew personally. He claimed that the RSS leader threatened to kill him when he failed to pay the debt. He claimed that he was attacked by members of the RSS and required major surgery to recover. He also claimed that he was hit by a car driven by members of the RSS in 2004 resulting in his hospitalisation for two weeks. He claimed that the police accepted the matter was an accident. He claimed that he went to Bangalore in December 2005, returning to Kerala in 2007 when his mother became ill. He claimed that his house was attacked and that he made a complaint to the police, but they did not take any action. He stated that he could not return to India because his creditors were chasing him.
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