SZLRL v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZLRL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2008] FMCA 1128

MIGRATION – RRT decision – second application for judicial review – no arguable case – application again dismissed at show‑cause hearing – direction discouraging further filings.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.44.12(1)(a)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.476

SZLRL v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 716
SZLRL v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2008] FMCA 196

Applicant:

SZLRL

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 1522 of 2008

Judgment of:

Smith FM

Hearing date:

30 July 2008

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

30 July 2008

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Applicant in person

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Ms J Dinihan

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 $1,500.
Direct that no further application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 30 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 1522 of 2008

SZLRL

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

This application filed on 13 June 2008 seeks judicial review under s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 30 October 2007.

The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate, refusing to grant a protection visa to the applicant.
The Tribunal rejected claims by the applicant that he was at risk of persecution by Indian authorities if he returned to India. It thought those claims had been “manufactured and embellished”, and found that the applicant was not a credible witness in respect of those claims. The Tribunal also considered claims that the applicant had been involved in disputes with Muslim fishermen in the area where he lived. It accepted that he was a Christian, but found that the difficulties he had faced were not for an essential and significant reason related to the Refugees Convention. It also addressed whether he could relocate in India to avoid his difficulties.
The applicant has previously sought judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal. His application was dismissed by Driver FM on 20 February 2008 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 relief (see SZLRL v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2008] FMCA 196).
An application for leave to appeal was dismissed by Flick J on 20 May 2008 (see SZLRL v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 716). As did Driver FM, Flick J reviewed the reasons of the Tribunal generally, and could not identify any jurisdictional error.
The applicant’s present application repeats the grounds of jurisdictional error which were presented to Driver FM without particulars. They still lack particulars which could raise any argument of merit.
A written submission filed by the applicant continues to address the arguments and issues which were addressed by the previous judges. The arguments have not been given greater substance in the applicant’s submission. His written submission also presents his refugee claims to the Court on an assumption that the Court should address them and has not yet done so. However, it is not the Court’s function to do that, and I have tried to explain this to the applicant, as no doubt did the previous judges. Unfortunately, I do not think he comprehends what I told him.
The applicant’s oral submissions today maintained a plea that he be given a further opportunity to present fresh evidence in support of refugee claims to the Tribunal.
The applicant’s present application faces difficulties not only on merits, but also in terms of abuse of process and discretion arising from his previous unsuccessful litigation. I propose to dismiss it today under r.44.12(1)(a), on the ground that it does not raise an arguable case for the making of the relief claimed.
However, in view of the applicant’s lack of comprehension of the need for finality in litigation and the role of the Court in matters such as the present, and his reliance on unhelpful precedents and unqualified helpers, I propose to direct the Registry not to allow further applications to be filed in relation to his protection visa application without first obtaining the leave of the Court.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Smith FM

Associate: Lilian Khaw

Date: 8 August 2008

SZLRL v Minister for Immigration is a case involving the applicant, SZLRL, who is seeking protection under the Australian migration system. The Minister for Immigration, the first respondent, was opposing the application. The dispute arose from the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision, which rejected the applicant's claim for a protection visa. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, which was asked to review the tribunal's decision and the delegate's prior decision.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's application for judicial review of the tribunal's decision was arguable. This involved assessing whether there was a reasonable possibility that the tribunal had made an error in law or in fact that affected the outcome of the case. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the application was frivolous or vexatious, which would warrant its dismissal under the court's rules.

The court concluded that the application did not raise an arguable case for relief. It found that the tribunal's decision was well-reasoned and based on a thorough consideration of the evidence and applicable law. The court also determined that the application was frivolous, as it repeated arguments that had already been considered and rejected by the tribunal and the delegate. As a result, the court dismissed the application under Rule 44.12(1)(a) and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the proceeding. Furthermore, the court prohibited any further applications for review of the tribunal's decision, the delegate's decision, or any related administrative decision or action, unless prior leave of the court was obtained.

The court's orders were that the application was dismissed, the applicant must pay the respondent's costs, and no further applications for review could be made without the court's leave. This decision reinforces the principle that the court will not entertain repeated or frivolous applications that do not present a reasonable prospect of success.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established