SZLUE v Minister for Immigration
[2009] FMCA 385
•21 April 2009
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZLUE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2009] FMCA 385 |
| MIGRATION – RRT decision – second application for judicial review – no arguable case – application dismissed at first court date. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.44.12(1)(a) Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.476 |
| SZLUE v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship & Anor [2009] HCASL 41 SZLUE v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1433 SZLUE v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2008] FMCA 779 |
| Applicant: | SZLUE |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 721 of 2009 |
| Judgment of: | Smith FM |
| Hearing date: | 21 April 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 21 April 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Applicant in person |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Ms B Anniwell |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Australian Government Solicitor |
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 $650.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 721 of 2009
| SZLUE |
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 26 March 2009 seeking judicial review under s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 29 November 2007. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate refusing to grant a protection visa to the applicant.
The validity of the Tribunal’s decision has already been upheld in previous litigation under the same jurisdiction. Orchiston FM dismissed an application on 13 June 2008 (SZLUE v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2008] FMCA 779). Her Honour considered the applicant’s arguments and other issues, and concluded that the Tribunal’s decision was not affected by jurisdictional error and was a privative clause decision.
Her Honour’s judgment was upheld by Reeves J on 18 September 2008 (see SZLUE v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1433). His Honour found no error in Orchiston FM’s judgment, and also addressed other issues and found that the Tribunal did not commit any jurisdictional error.
An application for special leave to appeal to the High Court was refused by French CJ and Hayne J on 3 March 2009 (see SZLUE v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship & Anor [2009] HCASL 41). Their Honours said that any appeal would have no prospect of success.
The present application repeats grounds which it appears to me have already been addressed in the previous litigation. The grounds are framed in unparticularised terms, and on their face do not raise an arguable ground of jurisdictional error.
Moreover, as a result of the previous litigation, it appears to me that the present application is hopeless on principles of res judicata or Anshun estoppel. The only justification the applicant offered today for commencing a second round of litigation was that he wished an opportunity to present more documents proving his refugee case. However, this cannot provide grounds of judicial review.
In my opinion, the present application does not raise an arguable case for the relief claimed, and it is appropriate to dismiss it under r.44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth). I note that the applicant has been put on notice that the Minister would be moving for that order today, through the service of a letter enclosing a response and a supporting affidavit.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Smith FM
Associate: Lilian Khaw
Date: 6 May 2009
0
2
0