Case: SZEEU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 269
Outcome: applied
Tribunal is required to give accurate particulars of adverse information to the applicant. Its failure to do so is jurisdictional error. see SZEEU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 269 The Appellant's application for a protection visa had been grounded upon his claim to fear persecution in India on account of his Christianity. More particularly, the claim was propounded upon his alleging to have preached to Dalits in Trivandrum, and encouraged their conversion thereby violating anti-conversion laws. He alleged that he had been arrested and held for three weeks and had been mistreated. He also alleged that he had been again arrested in January 2006 after what he described as the "Muslim dominated" CPI(M) had achieved power in Kerala. He claimed that the administration of his church had been told not to admit Muslims into the precinct and that he had been followed around Trivandrum. After the events so related the Appellant had visited Singapore. On his return he stated that he had been arrested and accused of converting Hindus. He further stated that he had been released on payment of one lakh, of Indian Rupees, and that he had been ordered to cease his religious activities. His claim, further, was that he, his brother and his brother-in-law had subsequently resumed their Christian charitable activities in areas outside Trivandrum, but they had been arrested again in November 2006 and accused of procuring conversions. He further claimed that he, his brother and his brother-in-law had been threatened with deportation to Pakistan and ordered to cease all of their religious activities. It was on the strength of these claims that upon arrival in Australia the Appellant advanced his application for a protection visa. Quite how the case SZEEU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 269 referred to in ground 2 was relevant was not developed in the Appellant's written or oral submissions. I have considered that case, which I note was decided on 7 March 2008. Its relevance to ground 2 is not immediately apparent. All in all, this is just one of those cases where the Tribunal reached views concerning the claim made for a visa, based upon an assessment of the Appellant's credibility. Having considered the Tribunal's reasons, there is nothing remarkable in the Federal Magistrates Court's conclusion that the Tribunal was entitled to reach the views that it did. Findings of credit, providing they are not indicative of illogicality, are matters, "par excellence", for the Tribunal. It follows that the appeal must be dismissed. I certify that the preceding twenty-three (23) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Logan. Associate: Dated: 25 February 2009 Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondents: Mr P Cleary Solicitor for the Respondents: Clayton Utz Lawyers Date of Hearing: 17 February 2009 Date of Judgment: 17 February 2009 AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2009/158.html