SZAQW v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1880

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAQW v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1880 SZAQW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 2024 OF 2005 GRAHAM J 9 DECEMBER 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2024 OF 2005

BETWEEN: SZAQW

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: GRAHAM J

DATE OF ORDER: 9 DECEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed. 2. The Applicant pay the Respondent's costs fixed in the agreed sum of $850. 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 2024 OF 2005

BETWEEN: SZAQW

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: GRAHAM J

DATE: 9 DECEMBER 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 What is presently before the Court is an application for leave to appeal by the Applicant who is identified for the purposes of these proceedings as SZAQW. The application for leave to appeal relates to a decision of a Federal Magistrate given on 18 October 2005, whereby an application for constitutional writ relief brought by the Applicant on 8 July 2005 was summarily dismissed. 2 This case is a classic example of one where a person who has applied for a protection visa will not accept that he has had his day in court and has no entitlement to have his case for a protection visa re-determined on the basis that he might hope for a different outcome. It seems to me that this case places a quite unfair burden upon the Australian taxpaying public and is one which should never have been brought to this Court. I will say something more about appropriate remedial action that the authorities may consider necessary shortly. 3 The Applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, arrived in Australia in February 2001. On 26 March 2001 he applied for a protection visa which was refused by the Minister's delegate on 15 May 2001. On 17 June 2001 the Applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for review of the delegate's decision. The Tribunal handed down its decision on 29 April 2003, affirming the decision of the Minister's delegate to refuse the grant of a protection visa to the Applicant. 4 In his submissions before me, when asked in what respect the Federal Magistrate's decision of 18 October 2005 was attended by sufficient doubt to warrant its reconsideration and why substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal from that decision were not granted, the Applicant responded with words to the effect: "I am talking about the Refugee Review Tribunal decision. The interpreter there didn't properly interpret. I want it sent back to the Refugee Tribunal so that the Refugee Tribunal member can reconsider the matter and I can explain my case properly."