SZFDL v Minister for Immigration - [2006] FMCA 537

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFDL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2006] FMCA 537

MIGRATION – Protection visa application – judicial review of the delegate’s decision – decision previously affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal – upheld by the Federal Magistrates Court, the Federal Court and the High Court – new application dismissed as an abuse of process.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.13.10
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.66, 91X

Kosi v Minister for Immigration [2003] FMCA 340
NALE v Minister for Immigration [2003] FMCA 366

NBGZ v Minister for Immigration [2005] FCAFC 119
SZFDL v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 899
SZFRF v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 48
SZGKO v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 1254
SZGMZ v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 1549
Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378

Applicant:

SZFDL

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number:

SYG3130 of 2005

Judgment of:

Lloyd-Jones FM

Hearing date:

6 April 2006

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

6 April 2006

REPRESENTATION

Applicant:

Applicant appeared in person with the aid of a Mongolian interpreter

Advocate for the Respondents:

Ms Z Brauer

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Clayton Utz

ORDERS

The first respondent’s application filed on 13 December 2005 is upheld.
The application for judicial review filed on 27 October 2005 is dismissed.
The Court directs that no further application by the applicant to review the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (of Dr Irene O’Connell, File No: NO4/49178) made on 30 September 2004 and handed down on 26 October 2004, or the decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration (of Rodrick Johnson File No: CLF2004/22279) made on 16 April 2004, is to be accepted for filing without leave of this Court.
The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $2,200.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG3130 of 2005

SZFDL

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Proceedings

By an application on 13 December 2005, the first respondent seeks an order that the applicant’s application be dismissed on the basis that:
a)An order that the application filed on 27 October 2005 be dismissed pursuant to r.13.10(b) and/or 13.10(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (“the Rules”) on the ground that the proceedings are vexatious and/or an abuse of process.
b)Further, or in the alternative, an order that the application filed on 27 October 2005 be dismissed pursuant to r.13.10(a) of the Rules on the ground that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed.
c)Further, or in the alternative, an order that the applicant may not institute further proceedings without the leave of the Court, including both the delegate’s decision and the Refugee Review Tribunal decision.
d)An order that the proceedings be otherwise stayed or dismissed.
e)Such further or other orders as…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read SZFDL v Minister for Immigration and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] FMCA 537
Decision Date: 6 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, SZFDL, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal and a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, which had resulted in the refusal of a visa application. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal and delegate had acted lawfully and rationally in making their decisions, and whether the applicant was entitled to a visa.

The Court examined the legal principles governing the review of administrative decisions, including the scope of judicial review and the standard of rationality. The Court found that the Tribunal and delegate had considered all relevant material and had made their decisions in a rational manner. The Court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any error of law or procedural unfairness that would warrant the Court intervening in the decisions made.

As a result, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the first respondent's application. The Court also directed that no further applications by the applicant to review the Tribunal and delegate's decisions could be accepted without leave of the Court. Finally, the Court ordered the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, in the sum of $2,200.

Orders

Orders of the court

The first respondent’s application filed on 13 December 2005 is upheld.

The application for judicial review filed on 27 October 2005 is dismissed.

The Court directs that no further application by the applicant to review the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (of Dr Irene O’Connell, File No: NO4/49178) made on 30 September 2004 and handed down on 26 October 2004, or the decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration (of Rodrick Johnson File No: CLF2004/22279) made on 16 April 2004, is to be accepted for filing without leave of this Court.

The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $2,200.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.