SZCLP v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.2)

[2007] FMCA 628

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCLP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR (No.2) [2007] FMCA 628

MIGRATION – RRT decision – denial of jurisdiction in second application – unsuccessful application for judicial review – application to set aside show‑cause dismissal refused.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.16.05(2)(c)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

SZCLP v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 326

Applicant: SZCLP

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG52 of 2007

Judgment of: Smith FM

Hearing date: 3 April 2007

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 3 April 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Applicant in person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr I Muthalib

Solicitors for the Respondents: Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

1. The application filed on 23 March 2007 under r.16.05(2)(c) seeking to set aside the orders made on 6 March 2007 is refused.

2. Direct that no further application shall be accepted for filing in this proceeding except with the prior leave of the Court. 

3. Direct that no further application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 17 December 2003 reference N03/46029, or for review of the decision of the delegate of the first respondent dated 25 February 2003, or for review of any other administrative decision or action by any person relating to the visa application which was considered in that decision, shall be accepted for filing without prior leave of the Court. 

4. The applicant must pay the first respondent’s costs assessed on an indemnity basis at $880. 

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG52 of 2007

SZCLP

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

1. In this matter, the applicant unsuccessfully applied for a protection visa, and he then unsuccessfully sought merits review by the Refugee Review Tribunal.  He unsuccessfully sought judicial review in this Court of the Tribunal’s decision made in 2003.  He then unsuccessfully appealed from this Court’s orders, both to the Federal Court and to the High Court.  References to the relevant dates and citations can be found in my judgment in SZCLP v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 326.

2. The applicant then pursued a course, in common with a number of other applicants in a similar position, of bringing a second application to the Tribunal, notwithstanding that the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) clearly provides a right to obtain merits review once only. He then applied to this Court for review of the Tribunal’s decision declining jurisdiction. I dismissed that application at a show‑cause hearing, and gave my reasons in the judgment cited above. The applicant attended the show‑cause hearing, and was present when I gave my judgment ex tempore.  He received my sealed orders on that day, and he was subsequently sent a revised copy of my judgment. 

3. However, on 23 March 2007 he presented to the Federal Court Registry another application to this Court, which the Registry accepted as an application to set aside my previous order under r.16.05(2)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) on the basis that it was interlocutory.

4. I doubt that the applicant, in fact, invoked that rule, but no other basis for his application is apparent on its face.  The orders it sought stated: 

   1.This application be allowed. 

   2.A writ of mandamus to rehear this matter by the RRT.  

   3.A writ of certiorari, quashing the RRT decision. 

5. The affidavit in support refers to the dismissal of his previous application by me, but does not suggest any grounds for reconsidering the opinions I expressed in my previous judgment.  Nor does it present any basis for this Court to entertain a second challenge to the first decision of the Tribunal, whose validity has already been judicially upheld. 

6. The applicant had nothing to say today to justify his application, and I consider that it should be refused. 

7. The applicant also had no submissions to make against my giving a direction to the Registry precluding any further applications to this Court, nor against the Minister’s application for indemnity costs.  In my opinion, orders providing for both are appropriately made in this case.  

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Smith FM

Associate:  Lilian Khaw

Date:  24 April 2007