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. Associate: Dated: 3 July 2001 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Kaur-Bains Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 21 June 2001 Date of Judgment: 21 June 2001 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA N 366 of 2001 new south wales DISTRICT REGISTRY ANNA PRONKO Applicant MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent cHRONOLOGY Date Description 27/04/1990 Anna Pronko ("Anna") entered Australia on a Visitor Visa valid for 6 months. Anna enters on a USSR Passport. 07/09/1990 Anna applies for Extended Eligibility for Temporary Entry Permit ("EETEP") on grounds that she is a special need relative of her uncle. 19/02/1992 EETEP refused. 16/03/1992 Application for review of EETEP refusal to Migration Internal Review Office ("MIRO") 19/05/1992 Department of Immigration Local Government and Ethnic Affairs ("DIEA") letter to Anna informing her that MIRO application is invalid because Regulation 2A(4) excludes visitors from obtaining a review of an EETEP refusal decision. 12/07/1992 Letter from Immigration Review Tribunal ("IRT") to Anna that IRT cannot accept application for review by the Tribunal because Regulation 2A(4) excludes visitors from obtaining a review of an EETEP refusal decision. 28/07/1992 Anna lodges application for refugee status withy DIEA. 26/10/1992 Letter informing Anna of refusal to grant refugee status. 26/11/1992 Anna lodges "application for review by the Refugee Status Review Committee of a decision to refuse the grant of refugee status" with DIEA. 22/07/1994 Anna lodges application for Class 816 "Special (Permanent) Entry Permit". 07/09/1995 Anna's application for a Class 816 Special (Permanent) Entry Permit refused. 19/08/1996 MIRO decision affirming decision to refuse the grant of class 816 Special (Permanent) Entry Permit to Anna. 20/09/1996 Anna applies for IRT review of MIRO decision which affirmed the decision to refuse the grant of the Special (Permanent) Entry Permit. 25/06/1997 IRT affirms decision of MIRO to refuse Anna the grant of the Class 816 Special (Permanent) Entry Permit. 10/7/1997 Anna applies to RRT for review of decision to refuse her refugee status/Protection visa. 01/03/1999 RRT affirms decision to refuse the grant of a protection visa. 18/03/1999 Section 351 Ministerial Intervention Request lodged by Adrian Joel solicitor on behalf of Anna. 17/04/1999 Minister's delegate considers Anna's case against the guidelines issued under section 417 Migration Act 1958 and determines that Anna does not meet them. 23/06/2000 Minister's letter indicating refusal to intervene under section 351 of the Act. 28/2/2000 Anna applies for Bridging Visa E ("BVE"). 15/3/2000 Anna is interviewed by DIMA at Rocks office. 17/3/2000 Anna's application for BVE lodged on 15/3/2000 refused. 15/08/2000 Anna approaches Rock's office of DIMA seeking BVE. She was detained under s.189 of the Act. 14/9/2000 Anna applies for BVE whilst in detention. 17/08/2000 Anna interviewed by DIMA official. 18/09/2000 Application for BVE refused. 20/9/2000 Anna lodges application with MRT for review of decision refusing grant of BVE. 28/09/2000 MRT affirms decision to refuse BVE. 15/01/2001 Anna lodges application for BVE. 15/01/2001 DIMA delegate refuses grant of BVE. 17/1/2001 Anna lodges application with MRT for review of decision refusing grant of BVE. 29/01/2001 MRT affirms decision to refuse grant of BVE. 12/03/2001 Anna lodges application for BVE (3rd application for BVE whilst in detention). 14/03/2001 DIMA decision refusing grant of BVE to Anna. 15/03/2001 Anna lodges application with MRT for review of decision refusing grant of BVE. 23/03/2001 MRT affirms decision to refuse grant of BVE to Anna. This is the decision which is the subject of the current judicial review proceedings. 6/4/2001 Anna lodges application for an order of review in Federal Court in relation to a decision dated "23 March 2001"