SZAPF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2007] FCA 1021

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAPF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1021

SZAPF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1119 OF 2007

MOORE J
4 JULY 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1119 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZAPF
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 JULY 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the Minister's costs fixed in the amount of $1200.

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 1119 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZAPF
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	4 JULY 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 24 May 2007 refusing to set aside an order earlier dismissing an application seeking judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal: see SZAPF v Minister for Immigration [2007] FMCA 850. The Tribunal decided on 13 February 2007 that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain another application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa. The delegate’s decision had been made on 29 May 2000 and was affirmed by an earlier decision of the Tribunal of 28 March 2003 (handed down on 17 April 2003). The Federal Magistrate was, in my view, correct in reaching the conclusion he did, namely, that the Tribunal was correct in concluding that it could not undertake a second review.

2. If leave was given any appeal would be, in my opinion, doomed to fail.  Accordingly, I propose to dismiss the application for leave and order the applicant to pay the Minister’s costs.  It should be noted that this application for leave and indeed the proceedings before the Federal Magistrate from which leave to appeal is sought are one of a multitude of proceedings that the applicant has brought, in the Federal Magistrates Court, this Court and the High Court, seeking to challenge the Ministerial decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa and subsequent reviews of that decision: see SZAPF v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 684, SZAPF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCATrans 802, SZAPF v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2005] FMCA 1967, SZAPF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 553, SZAPF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCATrans 649. I fix those costs in the sum of $1,200.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:       10 July 2007

The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	4 July 2007
Date of Judgment:	4 July 2007