Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZNMO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1439
SZNMO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1121 of 2009
RARES J
23 NOVEMBER 2009
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION NSD 1121 of 2009
on APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZNMO
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: RARES J
DATE OF ORDER: 23 NOVEMBER 2009
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs, fixed in the sum of $2,500.00. 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 1121 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: SZNMO
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: RARES J
DATE: 23 NOVEMBER 2009
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT) 1 This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrate's Court refusing the appellant constitutional writ relief in respect of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 20 March 2009 to affirm the decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant the appellant a protection (class XA) visa: SZNMO v Minister for Immigration [2009] FMCA 970.
The Delegate's Decision 2 The appellant is a citizen of India and arrived in Australia in August 2008. Over a month later he applied for a protection visa. Following an interview with the minister's delegate, the delegate determined to refuse to grant the appellant the visa. The delegate gave detailed reasons. These included relying on inconsistencies between the account given by the appellant in his application for the visa and his account of the circumstances impelling him to leave India given at the interview. The delegate also identified a number of instances in which the appellant had travelled to other countries prior to arriving in Australia in July 2008 and then returning to India before again arriving here. The delegate noted that the fact that the appellant had travelled overseas, including to and from Australia, and returned to India, suggested that he did not fear persecutory harm, and accordingly rejected the application.
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