Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZMSI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1378
SZMSI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 924 of 2009
COWDROY J
25 NOVEMBER 2009
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION NSD 924 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMSI
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE OF ORDER: 25 NOVEMBER 2009
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The Appellant pay the costs of the First Respondent. 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 924 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZMSI
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: COWDROY J
DATE: 25 NOVEMBER 2009
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant appeals from the decision of Federal Magistrate Cameron delivered on 6 August 2009 which dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') handed down on 7 August 2008. The Tribunal's decision affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship ('the Minister') to refuse to grant a Protection (Class XA) visa to the appellant.
BACKGROUND 2 The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia on 29 November 2007. On 28 December 2007 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 11 March 2008. On 27 March 2008 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 In his application for a protection visa, the appellant claimed to be a Christian, who worked as chief accountant for a 'Christian authorised NGO', the Participatory Development Initiatives of the Masses ('the PDIM'). The organisation is a 'micro-credit' organisation, handing out loans to help people start small businesses. 4 The appellant claimed to have become the target of fundamentalist Muslims as he allegedly influenced many Muslims and Christians and encouraged local poor people to become Christians while working for the PDIM. The appellant asserted that as a consequence of this in July 2006 fundamentalists from the Jagrata Muslim Bangladesh ('the JMB') entered his house in Gazipur and threatened to kill him and his family if they did not leave the area. As a result of continual harassment, the appellant and his family moved to Dhaka and went into hiding from late 2006. However, the appellant claimed to return to Gazipur occasionally for work. 5 The appellant claimed that on 11 October 2007 a 'bunch of fundamentalist Islamic people' attacked and assaulted him and threatened to kill him when he was returning to Dhaka from Gazipur, leaving him with five broken teeth and psychological harm. He later learned that his attackers were the same fundamentalists who were responsible for the deaths of ten Christians during an attack on a church, as well as a series of bomb attacks in Bangladesh. After the October 2007 attack he received telephone death threats from unknown people. 6 The appellant claimed that there are still violent and dangerous fundamentalist people in Bangladesh and he is not safe there. He claimed that the police are corrupt and sometimes sympathetic to the fundamentalists. The appellant claimed that if he returned to Bangladesh there would not be enough police to protect him from the threats he faces and the authorities are unable or unwilling to provide him with adequate and effective protection.
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