SZEKC v Minister for Immigration

[2007] FMCA 1457

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEKC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2007] FMCA 1457

MIGRATION – RRT decision declining jurisdiction – second application to Tribunal after previous unsuccessful judicial review – no appearance by applicant – no arguable case – application dismissed at first court date.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.13.03A(e)

SZASP v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 771

SZEKC v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 758
SZEKC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1370
SZEKC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA Trans 95
SZEKC v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 456
SZEKC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1065
SZEKC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2007] HCA Trans 225

Applicant: SZEKC

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2240 of 2007

Judgment of: Smith FM

Hearing date: 14 August 2007

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 14 August 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: No Appearance

Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms F Minzlaff

Solicitors for the Respondents: Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed under Rule 44.12(1)(a) on the ground that it does not raise an arguable case for relief.

2. The applicant must pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $1,000.

3. Direct that no further application for review of the decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 17 August 2004 or 2 July 2007, or for review of the decision of the delegate of the first respondent dated 3 May 2004, 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 27 April 2004, shall be accepted for filing without prior leave of the Court. 

4. The first respondent must within the next 2 days send to the applicant a copy of today’s order, and must inform the applicant of the provisions of Rule 16.05(2)(a) and that the Court would expect that any application to set aside the order would be filed within 21 days

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2240 of 2007

SZEKC

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

1. This is an application which reveals the abusive characteristics identified by Justice Moore in SZASP v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 771. The applicant has brought a second application to the Refugee Review Tribunal, after his first application to the Tribunal for review of a decision of a delegate was affirmed by a previous Tribunal decision. The validity of the earlier decision was upheld in the course of extensive judicial review litigation.

2. The applicant unsuccessfully sought judicial review in this Court, the Federal Court and the High Court (see SZEKC v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 758; SZEKC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1370; SZEKC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA Trans 95). He then commenced a second round of proceedings, which met a similar fate in this Court, the Federal Court and the High Court (see SZEKC v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 456; SZEKC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1065; SZEKC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2007] HCA Trans 225).

3. The new Tribunal decision which is the subject of the present application was made on the ground that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain a second application to review the delegate’s decision.   The reasons given by the Tribunal are obviously correct.   No arguable case for relief is shown in the material filed by the applicant, and in all the circumstances it appears appropriate to dismiss the application under r.44.12(1)(a).

4. The applicant has not attended this morning, but I have decided to proceed in his absence under r.13.03A(e). The applicant has been warned that the Minister would be seeking the dismissal of his matter this morning.

5. In view of the history of the applicant in bringing abusive proceedings, I consider it appropriate to give a direction requiring the Registry to refer to me any future applications sought to be filed in this Court in relation to his protection visa application.   He will need to show some legal merits before I give him leave to commence any new litigation of this character.

6. The applicant will be able to apply to me also to have the present order set aside, but he will need to show some merit in the present application as well as an explanation for his absence.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Smith FM

Associate:  Michael Abood

Date:  24 August 2007