FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZBXR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2007] FMCA 1225 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection visa – applicant claiming political persecution in Bangladesh – applicant abandoning his past political affiliation and activities but committed to supporting his brother, who remained active in politics in Bangladesh – Tribunal considering whether the applicant would be imputed with his brother’s political pinion or harmed as a family member – no well founded fear found – whether the Tribunal should have considered the risk that the applicant might be harmed for other reasons because of his brother’s political opinion considered – observations on the Convention nexus with political opinion when the opinion is not that of the person seeking protection. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.91S |
| SZDRV v Minister for Immigration [2005] FCA 926 |
| Applicant: | SZBXR |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG818 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Driver FM |
| Hearing date: | 26 July 2007 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 26 July 2007 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr J R Young |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Mr J Potts |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application in the sum of $5,000 in accordance with rule 44.15(1) and item 1(c) of part 2 of schedule 1 to the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG818 of 2007
| SZBXR |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)
This is an application to review a decision from the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). The decision was signed on 23 January 2007 and was handed down on 13 February 2007. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of the delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa. Background facts relating to the applicant's protection visa claims and the decision of the Tribunal were set out in written submissions filed on behalf of the Minister on 24 July 2007.
I adopt as background for the purposes of this judgment, with minor amendments, paragraphs 2 through to 10 of those written submissions:
The applicant is a 40 year old citizen of Bangladesh.[1] He arrived in Australia on 14 March 2002.[2] He lodged an application for a protection (Class XA) visa on 26 April 2002.[3] He claimed to fear persecution in Bangladesh on the grounds of political opinion, as an associate of the Awami League.[4]
Following the delegate’s decision on 18 June 2002, on 15 July 2002 the applicant sought review by the Tribunal.[5] On 23 June 2003 the Tribunal received a lengthy submission together with voluminous supporting material from the applicant’s advisors.[6]
The Tribunal, differently constituted, affirmed the delegate’s decision, and on 21 December 2005 that decision was quashed by order of this…
Continue reading SZBXR v Minister for Immigration
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- SZBXR v Minister for Immigration [2007] FMCA 1225
- Case
- [2007] FMCA 1225
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the Minister's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that there were no jurisdictional errors or errors of law apparent on the record. Justice Edelman held that the decision-maker had appropriately considered the relevant factors and exercised his discretion within the legal framework provided by the Migration Act. The court determined that SZBXR's arguments did not establish any grounds for overturning the Minister's decision. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the Minister's costs and disbursements as specified in the Federal Court Rules.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The application is dismissed.
2.
The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application in the sum of $5,000 in accordance with rule 44.15(1) and item 1(c) of part 2 of schedule 1 to the
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.