SZLXV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] FCA 1821

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLXV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1821

SZLXV, SZLXW and SZLXX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 1188 OF 2008

MOORE J
12 NOVEMBER 2008
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1188 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZLXV
First Appellant

SZLXW
Second Appellant

SZLXX
Third Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	12 NOVEMBER 2008
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed with 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	NSD 1188 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZLXV
First Appellant

SZLXW
Second Appellant

SZLXX
Third Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	12 NOVEMBER 2008
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 8 July 2008: SZLXV  & Ors v Minister For Immigration & Anor [2008] FMCA 906. The Federal Magistrate dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal that had affirmed a decision not to grant the appellants protection visas. It is unnecessary to refer in detail to the circumstances in which the appellants each applied for a protection visas.

2. It is sufficient to note that the first appellant is the husband of the second appellant, both of whom are the parents of the third appellant.  The protection visa was sought on the basis that as a result of the marriage of the first appellant to the second appellant, they were at risk of serious harm were they to return to their country of nationality, namely, Pakistan.  No separate or different claim was made in relation to their child. 

3. The essence of the Tribunal’s decision was that it did not accept the account of the appellants of their experiences in Pakistan, nor would it accept that they were at risk of harm of the type they described.  In the result, the decision of the Tribunal turned on its rejection of the substance of their claims.  It is unnecessary to detail the reasons of the Federal Magistrate that addressed what was said to be several grounds of review. 

4. The notice of appeal before this Court contains two grounds.  On my reading of those grounds, the appellants in substance seek to have this Court consider the factual circumstances upon which the claim for a protection visa was based and, in effect, reach a conclusion different to that reached by the Tribunal.  As I have endeavoured to explain to the first appellant who represents himself, his wife and his child, that is not a matter for this Court to consider or address. 

5. No error on the part of the Federal Magistrate has been demonstrated.  Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:        1 December 2008

The Appellants appeared in person.
Solicitor for the Respondents:	DLA Phillip Fox

Date of Hearing:	12 November 2008
Date of Judgment:	12 November 2008