Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZNJM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1295
SZNJM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 733 of 2009
SIOPIS J
13 NOVEMBER 2009
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
general division NSD 733 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZNJM
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: SIOPIS J
DATE OF ORDER: 13 NOVEMBER 2009
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant is to pay the first respondent's 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
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
general division NSD 733 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZNJM
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: SIOPIS J
DATE: 13 NOVEMBER 2009
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant is a citizen of India who arrived in Australia on 10 August 2008. On 9 September 2008, the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. 2 In his application for a protection visa, the appellant claimed to be a Sikh from the Punjab who feared persecution from his political rivals, claiming that they would kill him if he were to return to India. The appellant claimed that he became a big contributor to the local Bharatiyo Janata Party fund. Due to this affiliation, he was targeted by members of the Gujjar Party who came to his restaurant, threatened him and beat him badly. He claimed that he was hospitalised. He later told the police, who, although they said they would help him, were politically biased and did nothing. The appellant said his house was also attacked, and he became suicidal. He subsequently came to Australia on a visitor's visa. 3 The delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship dismissed the appellant's visa application. The appellant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) for a review of the delegate's decision. The Tribunal invited the appellant to attend a hearing, but the appellant failed to attend the hearing. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application for a review. The appellant sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. The Federal Magistrate dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review. The appellant appealed to this Court. 4 The only issue in this appeal is whether the Tribunal gave the appellant notice of the hearing in accordance with the provisions of s 441A(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). It is the appellant's contention that the Tribunal failed to do so, and therefore, failed to comply with s 425 of the Act; and that the Federal Magistrate erred in failing so to find.
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