SZJGU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2007] FCA 343


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJGU v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 343

SZJGU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD2374 OF 2006

JESSUP J
1 MARCH 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD2374 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZJGU
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

JESSUP J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 MARCH 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The title of the respondent as shown in the application for leave to appeal be amended to Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.

2.The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as the second respondent.

3.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

4.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the application fixed in the sum of $1,000.

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

NSD2374 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZJGU
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

JESSUP J

DATE:

1 MARCH 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court given on 22 November 2006 in which that court upheld a motion by the respondent Minister to dismiss a proceeding instituted by the applicant for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) dated 23 February 1999, affirming a decision of the delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant a protection visa to the applicant under the Migration Act1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’).

  2. The basis for the Minister's motion before the Federal Magistrate was that the application was out of time. The Magistrate allowed the motion and dismissed the proceeding as incompetent. The Magistrate's judgment was based upon the combined operation of s 477 of the Act and item 42 of part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Migration Litigation Reform Act 2005 (Cth).  The Magistrate found as a fact that the applicant had been notified of the Tribunal's decision by 25 March 1999 at the latest, when he signed a letter to the Minister in which his unsuccessful outcome before the Tribunal was referred to.  That fact having been established, the Federal Magistrate concluded that the purported application for judicial review was well out of time, and that she had no jurisdiction to hear the matter.

  3. The applicant has made a very brief submission before me this morning and has, frankly, made no attempt to demonstrate that the Magistrate was in error in any respect.  This appears to me to have been a clear case, and I agree with the Magistrate that the purported application for judicial review was out of time and incompetent. 

  4. It follows that I will dismiss the application for leave to appeal.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jessup.

Associate:

Dated:        13 March 2007

Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: P Reynolds
Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 1 March 2007
Date of Judgment: 1 March 2007
Details
AGLC
SZJGU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 343
Case
[2007] FCA 343
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, SZJGU, sought leave to appeal a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal), which upheld the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’s (the Minister) decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Federal Court of Australia (the Court) was asked to decide whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal the Tribunal’s decision.

The Court had to determine if the applicant had made out a case that was likely to succeed on appeal. The Court had to consider the merits of the case, the arguments presented by the parties, and the applicable law. The Court also had to consider whether the Tribunal had erred in its decision-making process.

The Court found that the applicant had not made out a case that was likely to succeed on appeal. The Court held that the Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant law and had not erred in its decision-making process. The Court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the Tribunal had made an error of law or had acted irrationally in its decision-making. The Court held that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed.

The Court granted the application to amend the title of the respondent to reflect the current Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. The Court also joined the Refugee Review Tribunal as the second respondent. The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The title of the respondent as shown in the application for leave to appeal be amended to Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.

2. The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as the second respondent.

3. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

4. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the application fixed in the sum of $1,000.

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

JESSUP J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: JESSUP J

Full text does not contain this section.