NAIB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 1580

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAIB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 1580

NAIB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REVIEW REFUGEE TRIBUNAL
NSD 1609 OF 2006

BLACK CJ
2 NOVEMBER 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1609 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

NAIB
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REVIEW REFUGEE TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	BLACK CJ
DATE OF ORDER:	2 NOVEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent, fixed in the sum of $1,000.

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 1609 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

NAIB
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REVIEW REFUGEE TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	BLACK CJ
DATE:	2 NOVEMBER 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

1. This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of Barnes FM made on      2 August 2006: NAIB v MIMA [2006] FMCA 1124. The application before her Honour sought judicial review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs made in November 2000. The delegate refused to grant the applicant a protection visa.

2. The application also sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made in February 2002 which had affirmed the delegate's decision.  As the learned Federal Magistrate noted, the applicant had challenged the decision of the Tribunal on a previous occasion in the Federal Magistrates Court and in this Court, and he was denied the special leave to appeal by the High Court: see respectively NAIB v MIMIA [2003] FMCA 342 (31 July 2003); NAIB v MIMIA [2003] FCA 1594 (16 December 2003); NAIB v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 184 (6 April 2005).

3. Barnes FM found that the application before her was really no more than an attempt to re-litigate a challenge to the decision of the Tribunal which had been already decided in the three proceedings to which I have referred. Her Honour also said that if there had been any error in the decision of the delegate it would have been cured by the decision of the Tribunal, as to which no error had been established. Her Honour held that the application was barred by the application of one or more legal doctrines that prevent the re-litigation of cases and she dismissed the application as an abuse of process of the court. She did so pursuant to Rule 13.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

4. In his notice of appeal the applicant again seeks to criticise the decision of the Tribunal, as he did in his oral submissions before me.  He was unable, however, to point to any error of a legal nature in the reasoning of Barnes FM.  No reason has been shown why leave to appeal should be granted.  It is clear that any appeal would be bound to fail.

5. Accordingly the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Black.

Associate:

Dated:            21 November 2006

The Applicant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	B Cramer
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	2 November 2006
Date of Judgment:	21 November 2006