Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZNSA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1440
SZNSA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 987 of 2009
RARES J
23 NOVEMBER 2009
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
general division NSD 987 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZNSA
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. 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 987 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZNSA
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 Magistrates Court refusing the appellant constitutional relief in respect of his challenge to a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal given on 29 May 2009, affirming a decision of the delegate of the Minister not to grant the appellant a protection class XA visa; SZNSA v Minister for Immigration (2009) FMCA 819. 2 The appellant is a citizen of India. He arrived in Australia in September 2008 and in early November 2008 he applied for a protection visa. He claimed to be entitled to protection on the ground of being a refugee in respect of his political opinion based on his association with the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) party. He claimed to have joined the party in December 1999 as a youth and at the time a neighbour, with whom he became associated, S.V.T. Raja, was a youth committee leader. The appellant claimed to have developed a close relationship with Mr Raja and as result of their political activities they attracted criticism from members of an opposition party, being the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). 3 In his application for a protection visa, the appellant claimed that under Mr Raja's leadership he and others became involved in providing social services to the community. He claimed that the opposing DMK party did not like that activity and attacked members of the AIADMK numerous times. He claimed that a number of "rowdies" from the DMK attacked members of his party and that if they complained to the police nothing was done, because of the power and influence of the DMK party in the area. He claimed that because the DMK party did not like the way in which people in his village were supporting the AIADMK, they threatened to murder some of its members. 4 He claimed that a member of Parliament from the opposing party planned to murder Mr Raja and himself using "rowdies" from a neighbouring town on 6 Septmber 2001. He claimed that Mr Raja and he were on their way to a village nearby when suddenly their vehicle was blocked by a person who came out of the car and then suddenly six "rowdies" attacked them with both knives and iron rods. He claimed that he escaped after being attacked with an iron rod and also stabbed. The next day he claimed to have run into the bush and then lost consciousness, waking and finding himself in hospital. He then learned that Mr Raja had been murdered. 5 The appellant claimed that "rowdies" had come to his house and tortured his family, asking where he was, and that he then went to stay with his grandmother for a short period until his location there was learned by his political opponents. He then claimed that his political opponents were keen to seek him out to murder him as well because he was the only eyewitness to Mr Raja's murder. He claimed that he then went to live in Chennai for 18 months but that during this period the DMK members went daily to his previous house, torturing his family, asking about him, and that he lost contact with his family because they fled. He claimed that someone from the DMK party saw him in Chennai and he then went to North India for a further six months before finding a job in Thailand. He arrived in Thailand in October 2003, worked there for two and a half years before returning to India in June 2006, staying there for about two and a half months searching for his family. He claimed not to have been able to find them but that his opponents knew he was in India again and began searching for him so that he left for Thailand in August 2006 to save his life. He claimed that he had stayed there for two more years but that his opponents came to know that he was there and came to Thailand to kill him. He then claimed that he needed to come to Australia to seek 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