SZAMP v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAMP & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 881

MIGRATION – Review of decision by delegate of first respondent – delay of 8 years – 10 prior proceedings in all federal courts seeking review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – abuse of process – indemnity costs.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.66(4)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.13.10; sch.1

Twist v Randwick Municipal Council (1976) 136 CLR 106
Wu v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 48 FCR 294
SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 215 ALR 162
Gersten v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 260
Applicant S506 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 450

First Applicant: SZAMP

Second Applicant: SZAMQ

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Second Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number: SYG3495 of 2005

Judgment of: Emmett FM

Hearing date: 31 May 2006

Date of last submission: 31 May 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 7 July 2006

REPRESENTATION

The applicant appearing on his own behalf

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms K. Crawley, Clayton Utz Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The application before this Court is dismissed.

2. That the applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs in an amount of $4119.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG3495 of 2005

SZAMP

First Applicant

SZAMQ

Second Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This is an application pursuant to s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and Division 2 of Pt. 8 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) for judicial review of a decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (“the Delegate”) dated 28 March 1998.

2. The application for a protection visa was refused on the basis that the first named applicant is not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations in accordance with the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol (“the Convention”). The second named applicant is the wife of the first named applicant and her application is dependent on the outcome of her husband’s application for a protection visa.

3. On 23 December 1997 the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa.

4. On 27 April 1998, the applicant lodged an application for review of the Delegate’s decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). On 2 February 2002, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Delegate not to grant a protection visa. Between 4 March 2002 and

   
   

   14 November 2005, the applicants lodged several proceedings in this Court, the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of Australia.

5. On 24 November 2005, the applicant filed an application in this Court seeking judicial review of the Delegate’s decision.

The hearing before this Court

1. Before the Court were 2 interlocutory applications and the applicants’ proceeding seeking judicial review of the…