SZEPL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 780

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEPL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 780 SZEPL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD680 OF 2005 EMMETT J 1 JUNE 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD680 OF 2005

BETWEEN: SZEPL

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 1 JUNE 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed; 2. the applicant pay the respondent's costs in the sum of $900. 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 NSD680 OF 2005

BETWEEN: SZEPL

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE: 1 JUNE 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I have before me an application for leave to appeal from orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court on 13 April 2005. By those orders the Federal Magistrates Court dismissed a proceeding summarily and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs. 2 The applicant is apparently a citizen of India. After arriving in Australia he applied for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act'). That application was refused. On 5 March 2003, the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ('the Minister'), to refuse a visa. The Tribunal published its reasons on 25 March 2003. On 17 April 2003, the applicant began a proceeding in the Federal Magistrates Court seeking review of the Tribunal's decision. On 5 February 2004, that proceeding was discontinued by consent and the applicant agreed to pay the Minister's costs. 3 On 20 October 2004, the applicant commenced a further proceeding in the Federal Magistrates Court. That proceeding also apparently sought relief in respect of the Tribunal's decision. The grounds specified in that application disclosed no basis of review that could succeed, in the absence of proper particulars. The grounds were as follows: '1. My home was attacked again last month.