FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZVYD v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 648
ORDERS
NSD 1994 of 2017 BETWEEN: SZVYD
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
ALLSOP CJ
DATE OF ORDER:
14 May 2019
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed with costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ALLSOP CJ:
This is an appeal against orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 4 October 2017 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 23 December 2014 which affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the appellant a protection (class XA) visa.
The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh and a Muslim who arrived in Australia in 2002. He claimed protection because he became and has remained dependent on alcohol since 2004. He claimed to fear persecution by reason of the laws of Bangladesh concerning alcohol. The Tribunal found that the law (the Intoxicant Control Act 1990) under the application of which persecution was feared was a law of general application ([28]) and if it were not and if it were to be seen as discriminatory, it was appropriate and adapted to achieve a legitimate object ([29]).
Given the issues on appeal, it is appropriate to set out the relevant reasoning of the Tribunal in full at [25]-[31]:
25. The applicant claims that…
Continue reading SZVYD v MIBP
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- SZVYD v MIBP [2019] FCA 648
- Case
- [2019] FCA 648
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues were whether certain laws of the home country were of general application and whether they were appropriate and adapted to a legitimate object in that country. The court was required to determine whether these laws could be a basis for a protection visa application under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The court had to consider the nature and purpose of the laws in question and whether they could be considered a basis for persecuting SZVYD. The court also needed to consider whether the application of these laws to SZVYD would amount to persecution.
The court held that the laws in question were of general application and were appropriate and adapted to a legitimate object in the home country. The court found that these laws did not single out SZVYD for adverse treatment and were not applied in a manner that would amount to persecution. The court held that the application for a protection visa should be dismissed as SZVYD did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under the Migration Act. The court found that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.
The orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed with costs. The parties were directed to comply with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 in relation to the entry of orders.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.