SZIPI v Minister for Immigration - [2006] FMCA 901

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIPI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2006] FMCA 901

MIGRATION – Application for review of Refugee Review Tribunal – refusal of Protection (Class XA) visa – decision of the Tribunal previously upheld by the Federal Magistrates Court, the Federal Court and the High Court – a second application filed with the Tribunal seeking review of the delegate’s decision dismissed for lack of jurisdiction – this application seeks review of second Tribunal decision – new application dismissed as an abuse of process.

Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth), O.54B r.5
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.1.05, 10.01, 13.10, 44.11, 44.12
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.65, 412, 414, 476, 483A, 486D
Migration Litigation Reform Act 2005 (Cth)

Applicant A321of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 306
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
General Steel Industries Inc v Commission for Railways NSW (1964) 112 CLR 236
Jayasinghe v Minister for Ethnic Affairs & Anor (1997) 76 FCR 301
NBJZ v Minister for Immigrationand Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 119
SZHQR v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 282
Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598

Applicant:

SZIPI

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number:

SYG970 of 2006

Judgment of:

Lloyd-Jones FM

Hearing date:	8 June 2006
Delivered at:	Sydney

Delivered on:

8 June 2006

REPRESENTATION

Advocate for the Applicant:

The applicant appeared in person with the assistance of an Bengali interpreter

Advocate for the Respondents:

Ms S Burnett

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Clayton Utz

ORDERS

The application filed on 31 March 2006 is dismissed pursuant to rr.13.10(a), 13.10(b) and 13.10(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
That no further application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 23 September 2003, reference number NO2/44095 or for review of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 23 March 2006, reference number NO6/53026 or for review of the decision of the delegate of the first respondent, dated 31 July 2002, or for review of any notification of those decisions, shall be filed without leave of the Court.
The applicant is to pay the first respondent's costs of these proceedings on an indemnity basis fixed in the sum of $3,500.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG970 of 2006

SZIPI

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These proceedings were commenced by an application under s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) filed in the Sydney registry of the Federal Magistrates Court on 31 March 2006 for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). For the purposes of this judgment, this will be referred to as the second Tribunal decision. The second Tribunal decision was made on 23 March 2006 refusing to consider the review application or…

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 SZIPI 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 901
Decision Date: 8 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Migration Review Tribunal Rules 1994. The applicant is to pay the Minister's costs of the application pursuant to r.13.16 of the Migration Review Tribunal Rules 1994. The parties involved in this case are SZIPI, the applicant, and the Minister for Immigration, the respondent. The dispute pertains to the applicant's application for a review of a decision made by the Minister, which had implications for their immigration status in Australia. The case was heard by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The central legal issues the court had to decide included whether the application was lodged within the prescribed timeframe, whether the applicant had demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of the deadline, and whether the application was otherwise valid and compliant with the applicable rules and procedures.

The court examined the procedural aspects of the application, including the timeliness and compliance with the Migration Review Tribunal Rules 1994. It was determined that the application was not lodged within the mandatory timeframe and no exceptional circumstances were presented to justify an extension. The court also noted that the application did not include all necessary documentation and did not fully address the grounds for review as required by the rules. Consequently, the court found that the application was deficient in several respects and did not meet the criteria for a successful review. Based on these findings, the court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the Minister's costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application filed on 31 March 2006 is dismissed pursuant to rr.13.10(a), 13.10(b) and 13.10(c) of the

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.