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
|
|
SACKVILLE J |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
|
|
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: |
|
|
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 |
