SZAUV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2007] FCA 1022

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAUV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1022

SZAUV, SZAUW, SZAUX AND SZAUY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 949 OF 2007

MOORE J
4 JULY 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 949 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZAUV
First Applicant

SZAUW
Second Applicant

SZAUX
Third Applicant

SZAUY
Fourth 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 for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2.The first and second applicants pay the Minister's costs.

3.Costs be fixed in the sum of $1100.

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 949 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZAUV
First Applicant

SZAUW
Second Applicant

SZAUX
Third Applicant

SZAUY
Fourth 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 decision of a Federal Magistrate of 10 May 2007 dismissing an application for judicial review as an abuse of process: see SZAUV & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 770. The Federal Magistrate's judgment concerned a decision of the Tribunal of 13 February 2007 (handed down on 15 February 2007). The Tribunal had determined that it had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for a review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister refusing to grant the applicants protection visas. There is some dispute about the precise date of the delegate’s decision but that does not matter.

2. What, in substance, is relevant is that the delegate’s decision had earlier been the subject of an application for review to the Tribunal by the applicants.  The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate by a decision handed down on 2 June 2003.  Accordingly, the Tribunal was correct in deciding in February 2007 that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the second application for review.  It is not apparent to me that the Federal Magistrate erred in dismissing the application for judicial review of that second decision as an abuse of process.

3. I should note that the application for judicial review most recently filed in the Federal Magistrates Court was made against a background of the applicants seeking to challenge in the Federal Magistrates, this Court and the High Court, the decision to refuse a protection visa and subsequent application to review that decision: see SZAUV v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 647, SZAUV & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1745, SZAUV & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2005] FMCA 1840, SZAUV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 578, SZAUV & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCATrans 710, SZAUV & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2006] HCATrans 641. I propose to dismiss this application for leave with costs. I so order. I fix those costs in the sum of $1,100 and order that those costs be payable by the first and second applicants only.

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:        10 July 2007

The First Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	4 July 2007
Date of Judgment:	4 July 2007