SZLRL v Minister for Immigration
[2008] FMCA 1128
•30 July 2008
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
0
2
0