Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZNJR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1318
SZNJR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 755 of 2009
COLLIER J
13 NOVEMBER 2009
BRISBANE (VIDEO TO SYDNEY)
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION NSD 755 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZNJR
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COLLIER J
DATE OF ORDER: 13 NOVEMBER 2009
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE (VIDEO TO 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 755 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZNJR
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COLLIER J
DATE: 13 NOVEMBER 2009
PLACE: BRISBANE (VIDEO TO SYDNEY)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a decision of Cameron FM delivered on 1 July 2009 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 3 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 6 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 November 2008. On 26 November 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 because of his political opinion and his religion. He claimed that he was actively involved with the CPI-Maoist Party and was a key member of the People's War Group. He stated that his opponents included the BJP and Congress Parties. He claimed that while he was in Singapore (2001-2003) he organised a workers strike, which resulted in him being arrested and charged. He stated that he was forced to resign his job and thereafter left Singapore, returning to India. The appellant claimed that he was arrested in 2007 in Kerala by the same police officer who arrested him in Singapore. Before the Tribunal the appellant also claimed that he was fleeing India because he feared harm from a faction with the Maoist movement for aligning himself with the Catholic Church.
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