SZCKB v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCKB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2005] FMCA 1905

MIGRATION – Where applicant seeks review of an RRT decision that has already been determined by the Federal Court.

Migration Act 1958, ss.424A, 474, 477
Federal Magistrates Court Rules

SAAP v Minister for Immigration [2005] HCA 24
ApplicantVEAL of 2002v Minister for Immigration [2005] HCA 72
A210 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 579

Applicant: SZCKB

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File Number: SYG26 of 2004

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 12 December 2005

Date of Last Submission: 12 December 2005

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 12 December 2005

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: Applicant in person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant pay the respondent's costs which I assess in the sum of $4,250 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG26 of 2004

SZCKB

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 20 March 2002 the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed a decision of the Minister's delegate refusing the applicant a protection visa.  On 6 May 2002 the applicant filed an application in the Federal Court for an order of review of the decision of the RRT.  On 8 October 2002 Hill J dismissed that application.  On 28 October 2002 the applicant filed a notice of appeal against his Honour's judgment and on 23 May 2003 the Full Bench of the Federal Court dismissed the appeal.  On 16 June 2003 the applicant applied for special leave to the High Court of Australia and on 24 December 2003 an appeal was deemed abandoned.

2. On 6 January 2004, undaunted by his failure in every other court within the jurisdiction, the applicant filed an application to this court seeking review of the same decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. 

3. But for certain decisions of the High Court of Australia this application would have been a simple matter to deal with on the basis of res judicata.  I am satisfied that the grounds upon which this application before me is based are essentially similar to those already heard by Hill J and the Full Bench and which were before the High Court for consideration of special leave.

4. One of the grounds upon which the applicant argued his case that the Tribunal had fallen into jurisdictional error was that it had failed to comply with the provisions of s.424A(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the “Act”) when he was not provided in the appropriate manner (in writing) with particulars of what has been described as a "dob in" letter that was before the Tribunal.

5. There is no suggestion that the Tribunal neglected to inform the applicant of the existence of this letter and the Full Bench of the Federal Court was apprised of the matter and in its extensive judgment took pains to point out that it did…