FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZFYM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 884
SZFYM AND SZFYN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 517 OF 2007MOORE J
8 JUNE 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 517 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
SZFYM
First ApplicantSZFYN
Second 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 first applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $800.00.
3.No further application for review of the decision of the delegate of the first respondent dated 8 May 2001, 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.
4.Any proceeding instituted by the applicant relating to the above may not be continued without the leave of the Court.
5.The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as a party.
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 517 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
SZFYM
First ApplicantSZFYN
Second 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 9 March 2007: see SZFYM & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 516. The Federal Magistrate dismissed an application for judicial review of a number of decisions concerning the applicants’ attempts to secure protection visas. The application before the Federal Magistrate purported to seek review of two decisions of a delegate of the Minister and two decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal. For the reasons given by the Federal Magistrate, his Honour was correct in dismissing the application. In my opinion any appeal would be doomed to fail.
I note that this application for leave to appeal is made against the background of extensive litigation both in this Court, the Federal Magistrates Court and the High Court: 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, NAQZ of 2002 & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCATrans 84, SZFXY, SZFYM & Anor v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 818, SZFYM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1303, and SZFYM & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCATrans 387. I order that the application be dismissed.
I order that the first applicant pay the Minister’s costs fixed in the sum of $800. I lastly order that no further proceedings be filed in this Court by the applicants 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
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
- SZFYM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 884
- Case
- [2007] FCA 884
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that arose in this case primarily centred on the scope and application of judicial review in the context of immigration decisions. Specifically, the court was required to consider whether the Minister's decision was made in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and whether it was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair. Additionally, the court examined the merits of the applicant's claims for protection and whether the decision-making process adequately considered these claims.
In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the decision-making process and the evidence presented before the delegate. The court found that the Minister's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was made in accordance with the relevant legal frameworks. The court further determined that the decision was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed. The court also imposed costs on the applicant and imposed restrictions on further applications and proceedings related to the same visa application without prior leave of the Court. Furthermore, the Refugee Review Tribunal was joined as a party to the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The first applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $800.00.
3. No further application for review of the decision of the delegate of the first respondent dated 8 May 2001, 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.
4. Any proceeding instituted by the applicant relating to the above may not be continued without the leave of the Court.
5. The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as a party.
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.