SZCTQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 637

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCTQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 637

SZCTQ v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 252, upheld

SZCTQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 532 OF 2005

GYLES J
11 MAY 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 532 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	SZCTQ APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 MAY 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.       The application be dismissed.

2.       The applicant pay the costs of the respondent assessed at $500.

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 532 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	SZCTQ APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE:	11 MAY 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for an extension of time for making of an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of Barnes FM (SZCTQ v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 252). I pass over the question of time, that is not crucial in this matter. What is crucial is the lack of any arguable chance of success on appeal. The application itself does not give any grounds for the application but it refers to an affidavit. The only affidavit in support addresses in a discursive fashion the question of delay but does not address in any fashion the identification of error in the judgment of the learned Federal Magistrate.

2. I have explained to the applicant that it is necessary to find error in that decision for this Court to have any role in the matter. She has been unable to point to any such error. Indeed, she said the matter had been prepared by her friends and that she could not see any error. She also made it clear that her complaint is that, in her view, she cannot safely go back to her home country or her home village with her child, that being the substance of the matter which was put before the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) in support of her application for a protection visa.

3. There are significant barriers in the way of success in such an appeal.  It would be necessary to point to some error of principle in the way in which the matter was approached.  As I have said, the applicant is unable to point to any such error and my reading of the reasons for judgment do not reveal any such error in principle to me.  Therefore, it is inevitable that the application be dismissed and I so order.

4. I order that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent assessed at $500.

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

Associate:

Dated:            20 May 2005

Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	11 May 2005
Date of Judgment:	11 May 2005