SZLGS v Minister for Immigration
[2008] FMCA 1658
•2 December 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZLGS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2008] FMCA 1658 |
| MIGRATION – RRT decision – previous unsuccessful application for judicial review – no arguable case – application dismissed at show cause hearing. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.44.12(1)(a) Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.476, 477 |
| SZLGS v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship & Anor [2008] HCASL 543 SZLGS v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 893 SZLGS v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2008] FMCA 253 |
| Applicant: | SZLGS |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 2913 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Smith FM |
| Hearing date: | 2 December 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 2 December 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Applicant in person |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Ms A Crittenden |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed under Rule 44.12(1)(a) on the ground that it does not raise an arguable case for the relief claimed.
The applicant must pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $1,000.
Direct that no further application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 14 August 2007 reference 071328506, or for review of the decision of the delegate of the first respondent dated 21 March 2007, or for review of any other administrative decision or action by any person or tribunal relating to the application for a protection visa received on 12 March 2007, shall be accepted for filing without prior leave of the Court.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2913 of 2008
| SZLGS |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)
This is an application filed on 11 November 2008, which seeks review under s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 14 August 2007. The Tribunal affirmed a decision refusing to grant a protection visa to the applicant.
The validity of the Tribunal’s decision has already been upheld in proceedings of the same nature as the present. Nicholls FM dismissed an application on 13 March 2008 (see SZLGS v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2008] FMCA 253). His Honour thoroughly examined the Tribunal’s decision and the contentions made by the applicant, and some further matters not raised by the applicant were also appropriately considered. His Honour was unable to discern any jurisdictional error affecting the Tribunal’s decision.
Reeves J dismissed an appeal on 17 June 2008 (see SZLGS v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 893). Although his Honour said the grounds of appeal were “indiscernible”, his Honour examined Nicholls FM’s judgment and said: “I have been unable to detect any error in those reasons, let alone an error that could amount to jurisdictional error”.
Gummow and Kiefel JJ refused an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court (see SZLGS v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship & Anor [2008] HCASL 543). They said: “the application to this Court raises factual matters and does not advance any question of law warranting the grant of special leave to appeal. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions of the Courts below”.
The application is today listed at its first court date. The Minister has given notice to the applicant that he would seek summary dismissal of the application today on the grounds that no arguable case is raised. The Minister has also invited the Court to dismiss the application summarily on grounds of abuse of process and absence of jurisdiction under s.477 of the Migration Act. However, in my opinion the appropriate basis on which I should dismiss the application today is that it does not raise an arguable case for the relief it claims.
This is apparent on the face of the application, since its asserted grounds of review lack any particulars showing substance. Moreover, by reason of the litigation history I have sketched above, the application is doomed to failure on grounds of issue estoppel, res judicata and abuse of process. In my opinion, it is appropriate to dismiss the application today under r.44.12(1)(a).
Although this is only the first time that the applicant has sought to re‑litigate matters already decided by the Courts, his submissions to me today reveal no understanding of the need to accept the finality of his previous litigation. He appears emotionally attached to the view that he cannot go back to India. I have advised him to take further advice about his immigration status in Australia, but in my opinion it is appropriate to remind him that he cannot keep coming back to court in relation to his unsuccessful protection visa application. I shall therefore direct the Registry that any further application should be referred to me for leave, before it can be filed.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Smith FM
Associate: Lilian Khaw
Date: 12 December 2008
0
3
0