SZEZG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2007] FCA 2003

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEZG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 2003

SZEZG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD1699 OF 2007

MOORE J
13 DECEMBER 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD1699 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZEZG
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 DECEMBER 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the Minister's costs fixed in the sum of $1000.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD1699 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZEZG
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

13 DECEMBER 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrate of 7 August 2007, dismissing an application under rule 44 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), as disclosing no arguable case (SZEZG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor [2007] FMCA 1403). The application before the Federal Magistrate was an application for judicial review of a decision of the Tribunal handed down on 26 June 2007 and sent on 28 June 2007. The Refugee Review Tribunal concluded that it had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for review of a decision of the delegate of the Minister, refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa.

  2. The decisions of both the Federal Magistrate and the Tribunal were preceded by litigation in the Tribunal (N0448642), this Court (SZEZG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 184 and SZEZG vMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 866), the Federal Magistrates Court (SZEZG v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 812 and SZEZG v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 676) and the High Court (SZEZG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCATrans 715 and SZEZG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] HCATrans 230) seeking to challenge the underlying decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The Federal Magistrate, in my view, was correct in concluding that there was no arguable case that the Tribunal erred in reaching the conclusion it did by its decision of 26 June 2007, that it had no jurisdiction. 

  3. Accordingly, any appeal is doomed to fail and the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed with costs.  I order that those costs be fixed in the sum of $1000.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:        21 December 2007

The Applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing: 13 December 2007
Date of Judgment: 13 December 2007
Details
AGLC
SZEZG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 2003
Case
[2007] FCA 2003
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Szezg v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship involved the applicant, Szezg, who sought to appeal a decision made by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship regarding their immigration status. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal the decision. The Minister argued that the appeal was without merit and that the applicant had not demonstrated any errors in the decision-making process that would warrant an appeal.

The court was required to decide whether the applicant had satisfied the criteria for granting leave to appeal, as outlined in the relevant legislation. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the appeal had a reasonable chance of success, whether there were any other compelling reasons to grant leave, and whether the applicant had acted with due diligence. The court also had to assess the merits of the applicant's arguments and determine whether there were any errors in the decision-making process that would warrant an appeal.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for granting leave to appeal. The court held that the appeal did not have a reasonable chance of success, as the applicant had not identified any errors in the decision-making process that would warrant an appeal. The court also found that there were no other compelling reasons to grant leave, and that the applicant had not acted with due diligence in pursuing their appeal. As a result, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the Minister's costs in the sum of $1000.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the Minister's costs fixed in the sum of $1000.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.