Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZQHF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 251 Citation: SZQHF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 251
Appeal from: SZQHF v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2011] FMCA 774
Parties: SZQHF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and JANET DUCKMANTON IN HER CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER
File number: NSD 1940 of 2011
Judge: NORTH J
Date of judgment: 20 February 2012
Date of hearing: 20 February 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 28
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr J. A. Gibson
Solicitor for the Appellant: Paddock & Associates
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr J. D. Smith
Solicitor for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 1940 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZQHF
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
JANET DUCKMANTON IN HER CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER
Second Respondent
JUDGE: NORTH J DATE OF ORDER: 20 FEBRUARY 2012 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Leave given to the appellant to argue the new ground of appeal contained in [1] of the amended notice of appeal as follows, namely, that the second respondent failed to determine an integer of the appellant's claims being a claim that she and her son attempted to defend their land and protested against the authorities and are now considered political dissidents. 2. The appeal is allowed. 3. Paragraph 1 of the orders made by Smith FM on 18 October 2011 is set aside. 4. The first respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal. AND THE COURT DECLARES THAT: 5. In recommending to the first respondent that the appellant is not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations, the second respondent made an error of law in that she failed to consider a discreet integer of the appellant's claims being a claim that she and her son attempted to defend their land and protested against the authorities and are now considered political dissidents. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 1940 of 2011
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