SZBIC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 255

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBIC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 255

MIGRATION – no point of principle

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) SZBIC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 2295 OF 2003 MOORE J 18 MARCH 2004 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 2295 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZBIC

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER: 18 MARCH 2004

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal is dismissed as incompetent. 2. The application for an extension of time in which leave to appeal ought to be sought is dismissed. 3. The appellant pay the respondent's costs. 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 2295 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZBIC

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MOORE J

DATE: 18 MARCH 2004

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction 1 This is a purported appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 19 November 2003 dismissing an application for judicial review (said in the originating process filed in the Federal Magistrates Court to be made under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)) of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). On 31 May 2000 a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister") refused to grant the appellant a Protection Visa (866). This decision was affirmed by the Tribunal on 31 October 2002. The Minister objects to the competency of the appeal on the grounds that the appellant was required to seek leave to appeal and has not. This objection is based on the contention that the judgment of the Federal Magistrate of 19 November 2003 was an interlocutory judgment. 2 On 13 December 2002 the appellant instituted proceedings in the High Court of Australia seeking constitutional writs and an injunction in relation to the decision of the Tribunal. The High Court remitted the matter the Federal Court. On 22 August 2003 Selway J dismissed the application because the appellant had not complied with orders his Honour had made.