SZEZG v Minister for Immigration

[2007] FMCA 1403

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEZG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2007] FMCA 1403

MIGRATION – RRT decision – second application to Tribunal – no arguable grounds for establishing jurisdiction – application for judicial review dismissed at first court date.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.44.12, 44.12(1)(a)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.476

SZASP v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 771
SZEZG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2007] HCATrans 230
SZEZG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2006] FCA 866
SZEZG v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 676
SZEZG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCATrans 715
SZEZG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 184
SZEZG v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 812

Applicant: SZEZG

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG2221 of 2007

Judgment of: Smith FM

Hearing date: 7 August 2007

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 7 August 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Applicant in person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms M Palmer

Solicitors for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

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

2. The applicant must pay the first respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis in the sum of $1,900. 

3. Direct that no further application for review of the decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 30 June 2004 or 28 June 2007, or for review of the decision of the delegate of the first respondent dated 19 February 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 23 October 2003, shall be accepted for filing without prior leave of the Court. 

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG2221 of 2007

SZEZG

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

1. This is an application filed on 18 July 2007, seeking to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) dated 26 June 2007 and sent to the applicant on 28 June 2007. The Tribunal decided that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain an application for review of a decision of a delegate made on 19 February 2004, which refused to grant a protection visa to the applicant.

2. The applicant’s application to the Tribunal was made on 15 June 2007.  In its statement of reasons, the Tribunal pointed out that the applicant had previously sought a review by the Tribunal of the same decision of the delegate, and the Tribunal had affirmed that decision in a decision handed down on 30 June 2004.  The applicant had then sought judicial review in this Court, which was refused by Lloyd‑Jones FM (see SZEZG v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 812). An appeal was dismissed by Lindgren J (see SZEZG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 184). An application for special leave was refused by Hayne and Callinan JJ, with 28 other applications using the same form of application (see SZEZG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCATrans 715).

3. The applicant then commenced a second judicial review proceeding in this Court, which was dismissed as an abuse of process by Nicholls FM (see SZEZG v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 676). An application for leave was refused by Moore J (see SZEZG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2006] FCA 866). An application for special leave was refused by Kirby and Callinan JJ (see SZEZG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2007] HCATrans 230). When giving their Honours’ reasons, Kirby J characterised the application to the High Court itself as an abuse of process.

4. The applicant then followed a path of lodging a plainly hopeless application to the Tribunal in circumstances very familiar to this Court, and which have been characterised as abusive by Moore J in SZASP v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 771.

5. The Tribunal’s opinion about its jurisdiction was plainly correct, and I can see no arguable grounds for bringing the present application. The applicant has been on notice that the Minister would move at the first court date today for its dismissal, and I consider it appropriate to dismiss it under r.44.12(1)(a).

6. The applicant had no submissions at all to justify bringing his hopeless applications to the Tribunal and this Court, and I consider it appropriate to give a direction to the Registry requiring leave before he seeks any further orders from this Court in relation to his protection visa application. 

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

Associate:  Lilian Khaw

Date:  24 August 2007