SZAYH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2007] FCA 218

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAYH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 218

SZAYH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 2312 OF 2006

MOORE J
27 FEBRUARY 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2312 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZAYH
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 FEBRUARY 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent's costs.

3.The Refugee Review Tribunal be added as second respondent.

4.The name of the first respondent be amended to the 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'.

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 2312 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZAYH
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

27 FEBRUARY 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 7 November 2006: see SZAYH v Minister for Immigration (No 2) [2005] FMCA 1764. His Honour found that the application for judicial review had no prospects of success and dismissed it as an abuse of process. His Honour also directed that no further order for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 17 June 2003 or for review of the decision of the delegate of the first respondent of 24 May 2002 or for review of any notification of those decisions be accepted for filing without prior leave of the Court. Those orders were made against a background of extensive litigation in the Federal Magistrates Court, this Court and the High Court: see SZAYH v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 771, SZAYH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 4, SZAYH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCATrans 353, SZAYH v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 1122, SZAYH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1414, SZAYH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 240, SZAYH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCATrans 556.

  2. In my opinion it was well open to the Federal Magistrate to dismiss the application as he did having regard to the history of that litigation.  Any appeal against that judgment has no prospects of success.  Accordingly I dismiss the application for leave to appeal and order that the applicant pay the first  respondent’s costs. 

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:        2 March 2007

The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 27 February 2007
Date of Judgment: 27 February 2007
Details
AGLC
SZAYH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 218
Case
[2007] FCA 218
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were SZAYH, an applicant for refugee status, and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, along with the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicant sought to appeal a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal, which had previously dismissed his application for a protection visa. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the decision made by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had correctly exercised its discretion in denying the applicant's application for a protection visa. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had failed to adequately consider certain evidence and had thereby erred in its decision-making process. The court was required to determine whether the Tribunal's decision was legally sound and whether the applicant's rights had been adequately protected.

The court held that the Tribunal had correctly exercised its discretion in denying the applicant's application for a protection visa. The court found that the Tribunal had adequately considered all relevant evidence and had not erred in its decision-making process. The court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the Tribunal's decision was unlawful or otherwise flawed. The court therefore dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs. The court also added the Refugee Review Tribunal as a second respondent and amended the name of the first respondent to the 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs.

3. The Refugee Review Tribunal be added as second respondent.

4. The name of the first respondent be amended to the 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.