FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZGRP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1535 MIGRATION – no point of principle SZGRP AND SZGRQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 1885 OF 2005 MOORE J 31 OCTOBER 2005 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1885 OF 2005 BETWEEN: SZGRP FIRST APPLICANT SZGRQ SECOND APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: MOORE J DATE OF ORDER: 31 OCTOBER 2005 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed. 2. The applicants 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 NSD 1885 OF 2005 BETWEEN: SZGRP FIRST APPLICANT SZGRQ SECOND APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: MOORE J DATE: 31 OCTOBER 2005 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 14 September 2005. The Federal Magistrate dismissed as incompetent an application for judicial review filed in that Court on 7 July 2005. That application sought to challenge, by way of judicial review, a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 6 September 2002. 2 Earlier proceedings in this court culminated in the decision of Allsop J of 10 June 2003 in which his Honour dismissed the application for judicial review challenging the Tribunal's decision. An appeal from the judgment of Allsop J was dismissed by a Full Court on 16 December 2003. Subsequent applications for special leave to appeal to the High Court were either abandoned or dismissed. 3 The draft notice of appeal does not purport to raise any jurisdictional error not raised in the earlier proceedings in this Court. The Federal Magistrate was correct in concluding that the application before her was an application challenging a privative clause decision. Accordingly, she was correct in dismissing that application as incompetent. 4 Accordingly I propose to refuse leave to appeal and order the applicants to pay the respondent's costs. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore. Associate: Dated: 16 November 2005 The First Applicant appeared in person and on behalf of the Second Applicant Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 31 October 2005 Date of Judgment: 31 October 2005