SZLPX v Minister for Immigration

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

In the Federal Circuit Court, SZLPX brought proceedings against the Minister for Immigration, challenging the refusal of their application for a protection visa. The applicant, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, sought a review of the decision made by the delegate of the Minister for Immigration, which was upheld by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicant argued that they faced persecution in their home country based on their political opinion and membership in a particular social group.

The court had to determine whether the applicant's claim was credible and whether the decision-makers properly assessed the evidence provided. The primary issue was whether the applicant's fear of persecution was well-founded and whether the decision-makers correctly exercised their discretion in denying the protection visa. The court also had to consider whether the applicant's claim was arguable, as required by the Court's Rules.

The court found that the applicant's evidence did not support the claims of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The court noted that the applicant's claims were inconsistent and lacked corroboration. The decision-makers had properly exercised their discretion in finding that the applicant's claims were not credible. The court concluded that the applicant did not raise an arguable case for the relief claimed, and the application was dismissed. The court ordered the applicant to pay the Minister's costs and prohibited further applications for review without prior leave of the Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established