Applicant S227 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2007] FCA 1997

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S227 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1997

APPLICANT S227 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1787 OF 2007

MOORE J
13 DECEMBER 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1787 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S227 OF 2003
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 DECEMBER 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the Minister's costs fixed in the sum of $850.

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 1787 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S227 OF 2003
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

13 DECEMBER 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrate of 17 August 2007 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 5 April 2007: Applicant S227/2003 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 1508. The Tribunal had determined that it had no jurisdiction to entertain a second application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa. The first such application was the subject of a decision of the Tribunal handed down on 26 June 2000 affirming the delegate's decision.

  2. The Federal Magistrate, in my opinion, did not err in concluding that the application for judicial review of the second Tribunal's decision ought be dismissed as an abuse of process and also as one having no reasonable prospects of success.  Accordingly I refuse leave to appeal with costs.  I fix those costs in the sum of $850.

  3. I note that the Federal Magistrate's decision was made against the background where the applicant had litigated in this Court, the Federal Magistrates Court and the High Court the underlying decision of the delegate to refuse to grant the visa and the first Tribunal's decision: see [The applicant] v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural [2001] 205 Applicant S227/2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 983, S227 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 109.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:        21 December 2007

The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 13 December 2007
Date of Judgment: 13 December 2007
Details
AGLC
Applicant S227 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1997
Case
[2007] FCA 1997
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an applicant, referred to as S227, who sought leave to appeal a decision of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. The applicant, a non-citizen, had applied for a visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and, upon refusal, sought judicial review of that decision in the Federal Court. Following the dismissal of the review application, the applicant now sought leave to appeal to the High Court. The Minister opposed the application for leave to appeal and sought costs.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's appeal had prospects of success and, if so, whether the appeal was in the public interest. The court had to consider the merits of the arguments raised in the applicant's appeal, the likelihood of success, and whether the appeal would contribute to the development of the law or address an important public interest issue.

The court found that the applicant's appeal did not have reasonable prospects of success as the grounds of appeal were not meritorious. The applicant's arguments did not identify any errors of law or fact that would warrant a different outcome on appeal. Additionally, the court determined that the appeal was not in the public interest as it did not involve an issue of general importance or significance. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the appeal would lead to a clear advantage in the administration of justice. As a result, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the Minister's costs in the sum of $850.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the Minister's costs fixed in the sum of $850.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.