FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZLFQ v Minister For Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1255
SZLFQ and SZLFR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 636 of 2008
MOORE J
11 AUGUST 2008
SYDNEY
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
NSD 636 of 2008 |
|
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
BETWEEN: |
SZLFQ First Appellant
SZLFR Second Appellant
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent
|
|
MOORE J |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
11 AUGUST 2008 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
SYDNEY |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed with costs, fixed in the sum of $2,400.
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 636 of 2008 |
|
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
BETWEEN: |
SZLFQ First Appellant
SZLFR Second Appellant
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent
|
|
JUDGE: |
MOORE J |
|
DATE: |
11 AUGUST 2008 |
|
PLACE: |
SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court of 17 April 2008: SZLFQ & Anor v Minister For Immigration & Anor [2008] FMCA 459 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 13 July 2007: The appellant had applied for a protection visa and that application had been refused by a delegate of the Minister. That decision was affirmed by the Tribunal.
2 The claims of the applicant for a protection visa were founded, in the main, on his experiences, as he recounted them, in India as a practising Christian. The Tribunal, in substance, rejected the account given by the appellant and in so doing reached the conclusion that the appellant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution were he to return to India.
3 Before the Federal Magistrate the appellant raised six grounds. The learned Federal Magistrate considered each of those grounds and concluded none were made out.
4 In the written submissions filed by the appellant in these proceedings, the appellant, in substance, repeated the grounds raised before the Federal Magistrate. It is not apparent to me that the Federal Magistrate erred in his Honour's consideration of the appellant’s case. Indeed, having regard to the Tribunal’s reasons, the conclusions of the Federal Magistrate were unexceptionable. I should add that although I refer to the appellant in the singular, the application before the Federal Magistrate and, indeed, this appeal, were brought by the appellant who is appearing before me today and his wife (who is the second appellant in the proceedings before me). The appellant has not demonstrated any error on the part of the Federal Magistrate and the appropriate order is to dismiss the appeal with costs.
5 I order that those costs be fixed in the sum of $2400
|
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: 15 August 2008
|
The Appellant appeared in person. |
|
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the First Respondent: |
Sparke Helmore |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the First Respondent: |
T Reilly |
|
Date of Hearing: |
11 August 2008 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
11 August 2008 |
