NBLG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 937

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NBLG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 937

NBLG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

NSD 847 of 2005

EDMONDS J
17 JUNE 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 847 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	NBLG APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	EDMONDS J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 JUNE 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs, fixed in the amount of $1,000.00.

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 847 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	NBLG APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	EDMONDS J
DATE:	17 JUNE 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GIVEN EX TEMPORE
(REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT)

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing the applicant's application on the ground that it was incompetent.  The Federal Magistrate held that the applicant's application was entirely without merit and awarded costs against her on an indemnity basis.  The applicant has filed an affidavit in this Court which does not seem to address the Federal Magistrate's reasons.  The draft grounds of appeal simply state:

   “1.  I am a citizen of China who claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons my religion Belief in China under Refugee Convention as amended by the Refugee Protocol.

   2. I would like to reply the Refugee Status under section 43B under the Migration Act 1958.”

2. My review of the judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court indicates that it does not seem to be attended with any doubt at all, let alone sufficient doubt to warrant it being reconsidered by a full court.  As to whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, supposing the decision to be wrong: Supposing the Federal Magistrate was wrong to find that the application was incompetent there appears to be no arguable ground for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision disclosed in the material before the Federal Magistrate or which has been filed in this Court. 

3. Indeed, the applicant does not say that the Tribunal made an error. Rather, she seems to accept that the Tribunal was dealing with a false claim and now she wishes to put forward a different story.  For those reasons, leave is refused.

4. I will make an order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1000.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Edmonds.

Associate:

Dated:             7 July 2005

The Applicant appeared in person.

Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	17 June 2005
Date of Judgment:	17 June 2005