SZMOV v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia heard an appeal by SZMOV against the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, concerning the dismissal of their application for a protection visa. The appellants, SZMOV, argued that their earlier protection visa applications were not invalid because they were not made on the correct version of Form 866, which was in force in 1999. They contended that because the earlier application was not made on the correct form, it should not preclude their subsequent application for a protection visa. The Minister, represented by counsel, argued that the earlier application was valid, and the subsequent application was barred by section 48A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellants' earlier protection visa applications were invalid because they were not made on the correct version of Form 866 in force in 1999, and whether the invalidity of the earlier application precluded their subsequent application for a protection visa. The court examined the relevant legislative provisions, including sections 48A, 46, 25C of the Migration Act, and sections 49A(1)(b) and 14(1)(b) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) and the Legislation Act 2003 (Cth). The court also considered the relevant regulations, including reg 1.18(1) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). The court found that the argument advanced by the appellants was the same as that considered and rejected in previous cases, namely SZUGL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCCA 419 and BVJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCCA 178. The court rejected the argument and held that the earlier application was not invalid and the subsequent application was barred by section 48A of the Migration Act.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellants pay the respondent's costs. The court held that the appellants' argument was the same as that considered and rejected in previous cases, and that the argument was without merit. The court found that the appellants' earlier application was not invalid, and that the subsequent application was barred by section 48A of the Migration Act. The court held that the appellants' argument did not disclose any error of law or fact on the part of the primary judge, and that the appeal should be dismissed. The court also held that the appellants should pay the respondent's costs, as the appeal was frivolous and without merit.