FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZFIO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 891
SZFIO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 693 OF 2007MOORE J
8 JUNE 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 693 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
SZFIO
ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second RespondentJUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:
8 JUNE 2007
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as a party.
2.The application be dismissed.
3.The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $700.00.
4.No further application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal signed 16 February 2007, RRT case number 071069822, or for review of the decision of the delegate of the first respondent dated 8 August 2002, or for review of any other administrative decision or action by any person concerning the visa application which was considered in that decision, shall be accepted for filing without prior leave of the Court.
5.Any proceeding instituted by the applicant relating to the above may not be continued without the leave of the Court.
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
NSD 693 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
SZFIO
ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE:
8 JUNE 2007
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 2 April 2007 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 19 February 2007: see SZFIO v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 522. The Tribunal had determined that the application for review before it could not be made and that it had no jurisdiction to deal with it. The Federal Magistrate accepted that that decision was correct. In my opinion, the Federal Magistrate did not err in reaching that conclusion. Accordingly, were leave to appeal granted, there are no prospects of the appeal succeeding. I propose to dismiss the application and order that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $700.
I also order that the Tribunal be joined as the second respondent and that the applicant not file any further proceedings in this Court concerning a refusal to grant him a protection visa without leave of the Court. I make that last order notwithstanding the fact that the applicant has not appeared, having regard to the fact that he has litigated in this Court twice before, in the Federal Magistrate on two earlier occasions and in the High Court, in what appears to be a pointless attempt to deal with the refusal by the delegate of the Minister to grant him a protection visa see: SZFIO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1449, SZFIO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 663, SZFIO v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2005] FMCA 1391, SZFIO v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 1319 and SZFIO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] HCATrans 699.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore. Associate:
Dated: 26 June 2007
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 8 June 2007 Date of Judgment: 8 June 2007
- AGLC
- SZFIO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 891
- Case
- [2007] FCA 891
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues revolved around whether the applicant had standing to challenge the decisions and whether the RRT's decision was legally sound. The court examined whether the applicant had a sufficient connection to the subject matter of the decision to be considered aggrieved by it, and whether the RRT had applied the correct legal principles and made findings on the relevant material. Additionally, the court considered whether the RRT's decision was affected by jurisdictional error.
The Federal Court held that the applicant did not have standing to challenge the decisions as they did not have a sufficient connection to the subject matter. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that they had a direct interest in the outcome of the RRT's decision. Furthermore, the court determined that the RRT's decision was not affected by jurisdictional error and was legally valid. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.
The court ordered that the Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as a party, the application be dismissed, and the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent. Additionally, the court imposed restrictions on any future applications for review of the RRT's decision, the delegate's decision, or any other related administrative decisions without prior leave of the Court. The court also ruled that any proceedings brought by the applicant in relation to these decisions could not continue without leave of the Court.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as a party.
2. The application be dismissed.
3. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $700.00.
4. No further application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal signed 16 February 2007, RRT case number 071069822, or for review of the decision of the delegate of the first respondent dated 8 August 2002, or for review of any other administrative decision or action by any person concerning the visa application which was considered in that decision, shall be accepted for filing without prior leave of the Court.
5. Any proceeding instituted by the applicant relating to the above may not be continued without the leave of the Court.
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
Established by: MOORE J
Full text does not contain this section.