SZLPX v Minister for Immigration
[2008] FMCA 1078
•22 July 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZLPX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2008] FMCA 1078 |
| MIGRATION – RRT decision – second application for judicial review – no arguable case – application dismissed at first court date – direction to discourage future filings. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.44.12(1)(a) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) |
| SZLPX v Minister for Immigration [2008] FMCA 199 SZLPX v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 881 |
| Applicant: | SZLPX |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 1637 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Smith FM |
| Hearing date: | 22 July 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 22 July 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the 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 $800.
Direct that no further application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 16 October 2007, or for review of the decision of the delegate of the first respondent dated 5 June 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 14 May 2007, shall be accepted for filing without prior leave of the Court.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1637 of 2008
| SZLPX |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)
This application filed on 26 June 2008, is the second application by the applicant for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 16 October 2007. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate made on 5 June 2007, which refused to grant a protection visa to the applicant.
I dismissed the applicant’s first application under r.44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), on the ground that it did not raise an arguable case for the relief claimed (see SZLPX v Minister for Immigration [2008] FMCA 199). I do not propose to repeat the background to the matter again.
Before that order was made, the applicant was given a full opportunity to obtain legal advice, and to file arguments and evidence showing why there was jurisdictional error affecting the Tribunal's decision. He filed a number of documents, and I addressed all of these in my judgment.
The applicant applied to the Federal Court to appeal from my orders, but Emmett J dismissed an application for leave on 29 May 2008 (see SZLPX v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 881).
The present application contends breach of natural justice, procedural fairness and jurisdictional error with five particulars, which are attached. They appear to me to raise contentions exactly the same as those which I addressed, and which Emmett J addressed.
The applicant today made submissions which only criticised the merits of how the Tribunal decided his case.
I remain of the opinion that no arguable case for the giving of relief by way of certiorari and mandamus has been shown by the applicant. In the circumstances, I think it appropriate to accede to the Minister's request that I should dismiss the application at today's first Court date. The applicant has been given sufficient notice that the Minister would be seeking that order.
I am concerned that the applicant, both in his previous application and today in his present application, has relied on documents which appear to me to have been prepared with the assistance of somebody who is encouraging many such hopeless applications.
The applicant today showed no appreciation of the need for finality in litigation. In both those circumstances, I propose to direct the Registry not to allow any further application relating to the applicant's protection visa applications to be filed in this Court, without it first being shown to me for my leave.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Smith FM
Associate: Michael Abood
Date: 30 July 2008
0
2
2