SZCBQ v Minister for Immigration
[2007] FMCA 1732
•10 October 2007
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZCBQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2007] FMCA 1732 |
| MIGRATION – RRT decision – second application for judicial review – no arguable case – abuse of process – application dismissed at first court date. |
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.13.10(c)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.424A
SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2005) 215 ALR 162
SZCBQ v MIMA & Anor [2007] HCATrans 454
SZCBQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1538
SZCBQ v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 735
| Applicant: | SZCBQ |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG2928 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Smith FM |
| Hearing date: | 10 October 2007 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 10 October 2007 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Applicant in person |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Ms B Rayment |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
The substantive application is dismissed under Rule 13.10(c) as an abuse of the process of the Court.
The applicant must pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $1,000.
Direct that no further application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 18 November 2003 reference N02/44913, or for review of the decision of the delegate of the first respondent dated 17 October 2002 or for review of any other administrative decision or action by any person or tribunal relating to the application for a protection visa received on 13 August 2002, shall be accepted for filing without prior leave of the Court.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG2928 of 2007
| SZCBQ |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)
The applicant applied for protection in Australia in 2002, claiming a fear of persecution in India because of his political opinions and activities. His claims were not believed by the delegate nor the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed a decision refusing him a visa, in a decision handed down on 18 November 2003.
The applicant then sought judicial review of that decision by this Court. His application was dismissed, and appeals to the Federal Court and High Court were dismissed or refused (see SZCBQ v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 735; SZCBQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1538; and SZCBQ v MIMA & Anor [2007] HCATrans 454).
The applicant has now filed a second application seeking the same relief against the same decision of the Tribunal. His grounds blindly adopt a precedent, as did some previous documents he has filed in the courts. It shows no argument of arguable merit to show jurisdictional error by the Tribunal, and certainly no argument which was not previously presented, or could not reasonably have previously been presented. His affidavit in support suggests that he has a new argument based on s.424A and the effect of SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2005) 215 ALR 162. However, those issues were directly addressed in the previous judgments.
In my opinion, his application raises no arguable case for the relief claimed, and is also an abuse of process in the circumstances sketched above. I consider it appropriate to dismiss the application today on those grounds, notwithstanding that this is the first court date in the proceeding. I note that the applicant has been served with an outline of the respondent’s submissions, an affidavit and a response, clearly putting him on notice that this order would be sought today.
I would not make an order for indemnity costs in this case, but I shall make an order precluding further applications to this Court without leave.
I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Smith FM
Associate: Lilian Khaw
Date: 18 October 2007
0
4
0