SZLZS v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The Federal Court of Australia was presented with an appeal from SZLZS against the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The appellant, having previously been refused a protection visa, had his subsequent protection visa application deemed invalid under section 48A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). He argued that section 48A did not apply to him because the Form 866 he used to make the initial protection visa application was not the same as the version originally prescribed by the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). The appellant's argument was rejected by both the Federal Circuit Court and this Court on multiple occasions.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether section 48A of the Act applied to the appellant's situation, specifically considering the form of the application he used. The appellant's argument hinged on the premise that the form he used (Form 866) was not the same as the version originally prescribed by the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). The court, however, found that the appellant's argument was already comprehensively rejected by a series of prior decisions, starting with BVJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1205. These prior decisions were binding on the court and provided the basis for dismissing the appellant's argument.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the precedent set by the earlier decisions, which held that the appellant's argument lacked merit. The court found that the argument was substantially identical to those rejected in previous cases and, therefore, was not open to reconsideration. The court also noted that the appellant's reliance on the Legislation Act 2003 (Cth) did not alter the outcome, as there was no contrary intention evident from the Act or the Regulations. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.