Pronko v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 849

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pronko v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 849

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ANNA PRONKO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 366 of 2001 BRANSON J SYDNEY 21 JUNE 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 366 of 2001

BETWEEN: ANNA PRONKO

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 21 JUNE 2001

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The decision of the Migration Review Tribunal be affirmed. 2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondent. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 366 of 2001

BETWEEN: ANNA PRONKO

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE: 21 JUNE 2001

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION 1 The applicant, Mrs Pronko, has applied to the court for judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). That decision is dated 23 March 2001. On that day, the Tribunal affirmed a decision that Mrs Pronko was not entitled to be granted a Bridging E (class WE), sub class 050 visa. Mrs Pronko's application for an order of review does not identify any grounds upon which the review is sought. 2 Mrs Pronko attached to her application a letter to the Court dated 5 April 2001. The letter is apparently written in Ukrainian. The letter was read to the court by the interpreter on the hearing of Mrs Pronko's application. The letter confirms that Mrs Pronko does not understand the nature of the Court's jurisdiction in this matter. By the letter, Mrs Pronko makes it plain that she is seeking a court order granting her a protection visa or alternatively a bridging visa. The letter also indicates that Mrs Pronko seeks other relief from the Court which is even more clearly beyond the Court's jurisdiction. 3 Although I sought to explain to Mrs Pronko at the directions hearing the nature of the Court's jurisdiction, it appears that the explanation may not have assisted her. A chronology of Mrs Pronko's immigration history in Australia is attached to these reasons. This chronology has been prepared by the solicitors for the respondent. 4 It is necessary for the Court to consider Mrs Pronko's application in the light of the jurisdiction which the Court is given by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). It is plain that Mrs Pronko does not assert an entitlement to be granted a Bridging E (Class WE) sub class 050 visa. She does not contend that the Tribunal erred in failing to grant her a visa of that class. She indicated to the Court that she does not want to be granted a visa of that class. 5 Mrs Pronko faintly contended before this Court that she is entitled to a Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant) subclass 051 visa. Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant) subclass 051 visas are a class of visa intended for applicants for protection visas. Mrs Pronko plainly does not satisfy the criteria for a visa of this class. She was not at the time of her relevant visa application, or at the time of the decision under review, an applicant for a protection visa. Mrs Pronko has in the past applied for a protection visa. However, on 1 March 1999 the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed a decision that she not be granted a protection visa. No application was made for judicial review of that decision. I understand that since the date of the present application, Mrs Pronko has sought to re-agitate her entitlement to a protection visa. Whether or not these steps by Mrs Pronko have any legal significance, they were not steps that had been taken at the time of the decision under review. They have no relevance on the present application. 6 Whatever sympathy might be felt for Mrs Pronko having regard to the position in which she finds herself, it is plain that she is not really seeking judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal. It may be that this application should be struck out. The application fails to comply with the statutory requirement that it identify the grounds of review. Moreover, it may be that the application is in reality vexatious. However it is I think sufficient to note that the application is entirely without legal merit and to affirm the decision of the Tribunal. 7 There will be orders that the decision of the Tribunal be affirmed and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Branson.