SZACN v Minister for Immigration

[2005] FMCA 1895

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZACN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2005] FMCA 1895

MIGRATION – Application to review decision of delegate where RRT review had already been considered by all Federal Courts – abuse of process.

Migration Act 1958, s.483A

Applicant: SZACN

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File Number: SYG2911 of 2005

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 12 December 2005

Date of Last Submission: 12 December 2005

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 12 December 2005

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Applicant in person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as Second Respondent to these proceedings.

2. Substantive application filed on 11 October 2005 be dismissed.

3. The Registry not accept for filing any further application for review of:

   (a)the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 30 October 2002 and handed down on 21 November 2002 reference N00/34219;

   (b)the decision of the delegate of the respondent dated 30 June 2000; or

   (c)any notification of either the Refugee Review Tribunal or delegate’s decisions without prior leave of the court.

4. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding on any indemnity basis.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG2911 of 2005

SZACN

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. There comes before me today a notice of motion filed on 15 November 2005 seeking three orders.  The first is that the substantive application of the applicant filed on 11 October 2005 be dismissed as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and/or being frivolous or vexatious and/or being an abuse of the process of the court.  The second application is for an order that the registry not accept any further application for the review of the decision of the RRT made on 13 October 2002 or the decision of the delegate dated 30 June 2000 without prior leave of the court.  The third is an application that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of proceedings on an indemnity basis.

2. A short history of this matter is that that applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal declining to cavil with the decision of the delegate in relation to his claim for a protection visa and the matter was heard in this court by me on 12 May 2003. 

   
   

   I dismissed the application. The applicant appealed my order to the Federal Court where on 8 August 2003 Moore J dismissed the appeal. The applicant then approached the High Court seeking special leave to appeal. On 15 March 2004 that appeal was deemed abandoned. On 29 March 2004 the applicant filed a further application with the High Court. On 27 May 2005 Hayne and Heydon JJ of the High Court made orders refusing the application for special leave. On 20 June 2005 the applicant filed an application under s.483A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the “Act”) seeking review of the same decision of the Tribunal. On 1 July 2005 the respondent filed a notice of motion to dismiss that application which came before Barnes J on 27 July 2005. That application was also dismissed. On 31 August 2005 the applicant sought leave to appeal from the decision of Barnes J and on 19 September 2005 Tamberlin J refused to grant leave to appeal. On 11 October 2005 a further application under s.483A was filed by the applicant seeking review of the decision of the delegate of the respondent dated 30 June 2000.

3. The applicant filed a document entitled outline of submission on notice of motion.  The document was filed on 9 December 2005.  It is noteworthy that this document makes no reference whatsoever to the decision of the delegate, but it refers entirely to the decision of the Tribunal.  It is a totally misconceived document.  It leaves the applicant without any argument to resist the orders sought by the Minister.  Frankly, if there ever was an applicant who has sought to abuse the processes of the court it is this one.  He has tried everything in his power.  It is now time that his efforts should cease. Although of course nothing I say can prevent him from appealing the decision which I am about to make and doubtless the decision on appeal.

4. The substantive application filed on 11 October 2005 is dismissed on the basis that it is an abuse of the process of this court to seek review of a decision that has already been extensively reviewed by the Refugee Review Tribunal, whose own decision has been the subject of review in all courts up to the High Court and where no ground of jurisdictional error on anyone's part has been established.  I would therefore make the additional orders requested by the Minister set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the notice of motion signed by me and placed with the papers. Hopefully, this will prevent the applicant from further abusing the patience of the court. 

5. I make an additional order joining the Refugee Review Tribunal as the second respondent to these proceedings.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM

Associate: 

Date: