Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZMIJ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 124
SZMIJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1673 of 2008
EDMONDS J
23 FEBRUARY 2009
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1673 of 2008
BETWEEN: SZMIJ
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: EDMONDS J
DATE OF ORDER: 10 FEBRUARY 2009
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1673 of 2008
BETWEEN: SZMIJ
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: EDMONDS J
DATE: 23 FEBRUARY 2009
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction 1 This was an application for leave to appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (Driver FM) (SZMIJ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship & Anor [2008] FMCA 1138) dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the second respondent ('the Tribunal') pursuant to Rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, on the ground that it did not raise an arguable case for the relief claimed. Rule 44.12(2) provides that such a dismissal is interlocutory; hence the need for leave. 2 On 10 February 2009 I refused to grant leave with my reasons for such refusal to follow.
Background 3 The applicant is a female citizen of the People's Republic of China, who arrived in Australia on 24 August 2007 as the holder of a visitor visa. She applied for a protection visa on 28 September 2007. The application was refused by a delegate of the first respondent ('the Minister') on 21 December 2007. 4 On 29 January 2008, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision. The applicant attended a hearing before the Tribunal on 1 April 2008. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision.
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