FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZFXY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 885
SZFXY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 532 OF 2007MOORE J
8 JUNE 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 532 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
SZFXY
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 application be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $800.00.
3.The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as a party.
4.No further application for review of the decision of the delegate of the first respondent dated 23 December 1999, 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 532 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
SZFXY
ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second RespondentJUDGE:
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 9 March 2007: see SZFXY v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 517. His Honour dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the delegate of 23 December 1999 and of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 10 July 2002. For the reasons given by the Federal Magistrate, his Honour was correct in dismissing the application. Any appeal against his Honour’s judgment is, in my opinion, doomed to fail. Accordingly I refuse leave to appeal.
I note that this application for leave to appeal is made against a background in which the applicant has litigated both in this Court, the Federal Magistrates Court and the High Court on several occasions on what are asserted to be legal issues attending the refusal to grant her a protection visa: see NAQY & NAQZ v Minister for Immigration [2002] FMCA 355, NAQZ of 2002; NAQY of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 898, NAQY of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCATrans 83, SZFXY, SZFYM & Anor v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 818, SZFXY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1304, and SZFXY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCATrans 391. I order that the application be dismissed.
I lastly order that no further application be filed in this Court concerning the refusal to grant the applicant a protection visa without leave of the Court.
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: 26 June 2007
The Applicant appeared in person: Solicitor for the First Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron Date of Hearing: 8 June 2007 Date of Judgment: 8 June 2007
- AGLC
- SZFXY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 885
- Case
- [2007] FCA 885
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues central to the case involved the proper application of the Migration Act 1958 and the associated regulations. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Minister's decisions were made in accordance with the statutory provisions and whether the decisions were based on relevant considerations. Additionally, the court examined whether the Minister's actions were irrational or otherwise flawed.
In its judgment, the court found that the Minister's decisions were lawful and appropriate. The court held that the Minister had correctly applied the law and that the decisions were supported by the evidence. The court also found that the Refugee Review Tribunal, which had previously reviewed the case, had acted within its jurisdiction. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered that the applicant pay the Minister's costs. Furthermore, the court directed that the Tribunal be joined as a party to the proceedings and that no further applications for review would be accepted without the Court's leave. Any ongoing proceedings by the applicant were also to be subject to the Court's leave.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $800.00.
3. The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as a party.
4. No further application for review of the decision of the delegate of the first respondent dated 23 December 1999, 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.