Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZGZJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1217
SZGZJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 937 OF 2007
GILMOUR J
10 AUGUST 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 937 OF 2007
BETWEEN: SZGZJ
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: GILMOUR J DATE OF ORDER: 10 AUGUST 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed at $1,500. 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 937 OF 2007
BETWEEN: SZGZJ
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: GILMOUR J
DATE: 10 AUGUST 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from a judgment of aFederal Magistrateof 20 April 2007. The application before the Federal Magistrate sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('Tribunal') of 24 June 2005 and handed down on 14 July 2005 affirming the decision of the delegate of the first respondent refusing to grant a protection visa to the applicant.
BACKGROUND 2 The applicant, who was born on 1 October 1960, is a citizen of the People's Republic of China who arrived in Australia on 2 December 2004. On 11 January 2005 the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa with the then Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act'). A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 16 February 2005. On 22 March 2005 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The applicant provided a statement dated 10 January 2005 in support of her application for a protection visa, in which she claimed that in 1995, her husband got diabetes and gout, due to poor working conditions and tiredness. In early 1998, a family relative taught her husband to practice Falun Gong, hoping that it would be good for his health. The applicant claimed that she had a stomach disease which she wanted to cure, and that they practised Falun Gong twice a week after dinner in the Falun Gong Service Centre. The applicant further claimed that "at the end of this year", they were forbidden from practising Falun Gong and that her husband did not "obey the rules and he was fired and jailed." The applicant claimed that she was forced to report to the police. Upon his release, the applicant claimed that her husband had completely changed, that he was very "skinny and his hair went white." The applicant claimed that because he feared for her he requested a divorce and asked her to leave China.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate