SZDZX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 905

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDZX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 905 SZDZX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 837 of 2005 BRANSON J 21 JUNE 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 837 of 2005

BETWEEN: SZDZX

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 21 JUNE 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 837 of 2005

BETWEEN: SZDZX

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE: 21 JUNE 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant has applied for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court delivered on 10 May 2005. The applicant had sought judicial review by the Federal Magistrates Court of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') to affirm a decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant the applicant a protection visa. Lloyd-Jones FM upheld an application of the respondent to dismiss the application for judicial review for failure to comply with orders of the Federal Magistrates Court. His Honour's judgment was interlocutory. Accordingly, the applicant requires leave of the Court or a Judge to appeal from it (s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)). 2 The applicant is the estranged husband of the applicant identified as SZEAH. He applied for a protection visa as a member of her family. He made no independent claim to fear persecution in his home country. When the Tribunal determined that his wife was not a person in respect of whom Australia owes protection obligations under the Refugees Convention, his claim to be entitled to a protection visa necessarily failed. 3 Each of the applicant and his wife unsuccessfully sought judicial review by the Federal Magistrates Court of the decision of the Tribunal. The Federal Magistrates Court delivered separate judgments in respect of the applicant and his wife. They have each sought leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court on his or her application. 4 The applicant's application must fail for reasons expressed by me in SZEAH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 904. His application would in any event have to fail as his claim to be entitled to a protection visa is dependent upon the success of his wife's claim to be entitled to such a visa. Her claim has not succeeded and she has now been refused leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court by which her application for judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal was dismissed. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Branson.