SZFXY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 1304

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFXY v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2005] FCA 1304

SZFXY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NSD816 OF 2005

SACKVILLE J
19 SEPTEMBER 2005

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD816 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	SZFXY APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 SEPTEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

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	NSD816 OF 2005

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

JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE:	19 SEPTEMBER 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This an application for leave to appeal by the wife of the applicant in proceedings number NSD815 of 2005.  The documentation in support of the application for leave to appeal is virtually identical to that filed in the other proceedings.

2. The applicant arrived in Australia on an Indian passport with a temporary business visa.  Like her husband, she claimed to be a citizen of Bangladesh and to have fled that country for fear of persecution on religious grounds.  The RRT found that she, too, was a citizen of India and that she was not a Bangladeshi national.  The RRT rejected her claims.

3. The procedural history of this matter is substantially the same as that recounted in NSD815 of 2005.  The Magistrate rejected the applicant’s claim for relief in the same judgment in which he dismissed her husband’s claims.  His Honour did so for the same reasons.

4. For the reasons I have given in NSD815 of 2005, the applicant has not shown that the judgment of the Magistrate is attended by sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of leave to appeal.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal must be dismissed with costs.

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

Associate:

Dated:            19 September 2005

The applicant appeared in person.

Solicitors for the respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of hearing:	16 September 2005
Date of judgment:	19 September 2005