FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZDTA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 825
SZDTA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 391 OF 2005GYLES J
15 JUNE 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 391 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZDTA
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER:
15 JUNE 2005
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the costs of the respondent.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 391 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZDTA
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
GYLES J
DATE:
15 JUNE 2005
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This appeal was fixed for hearing today at 2.15 pm. The appellant did not appear at that time. I adjourned for quarter of an hour or so to ensure there was no slip in getting in to Court. The matter has been called again and there is still no appearance. The appeal is, in any event, totally without merit. It is yet another example of the system being abused.
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the costs of the respondent.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles. Associate:
Dated: 21 June 2005
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant did not appear Counsel for the Respondent: S McNaughton Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron Date of Hearing: 15 June 2005 Date of Judgment: 15 June 2005
- AGLC
- SZDTA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 825
- Case
- [2005] FCA 825
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the definition of a refugee under the applicable legislation, determining whether the appellant's fear of persecution was well-founded, and assessing the credibility of the appellant's evidence. The court had to consider whether the appellant's political activities and membership in a particular political party constituted a well-founded fear of persecution, and whether the appellant had provided sufficient evidence to support his claims. The court also had to evaluate the credibility of the appellant's evidence, including any documentary evidence and witness statements, and consider whether the appellant had provided a satisfactory explanation for any inconsistencies or gaps in his evidence.
The court found that the appellant's claims were not credible and that he had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims of persecution. The court held that the appellant's fear of persecution was not well-founded and that he did not satisfy the criteria for a refugee. The court also found that the appellant's evidence was inconsistent and that he had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the inconsistencies. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the respondent.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the costs of the respondent.
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
Established by: GYLES J
Full text does not contain this section.