FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA CZAH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 86 MIGRATION – no point of principle CZAH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL ACD 21/2005 MOORE J 13 FEBRUARY 2006 CANBERRA IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ACD 21 OF 2005 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: CZAH APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: MOORE J DATE OF ORDER: 13 FEBRUARY 2006 WHERE MADE: CANBERRA THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs. 3. The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as a 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 ACD 21 OF 2005 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: CZAH APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: MOORE J DATE: 13 FEBRUARY 2006 PLACE: CANBERRA REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 9 August 2005. That judgment concerned an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 17 June 2003. The application was dismissed by the Federal Magistrate as incompetent, because the Federal Magistrate concluded that the Tribunal's decision was a privative clause decision and in relation to such a decision applications had to be made within specified times. The Federal Magistrate was, in my view, correct in reaching the conclusion he did. It was against a background in which the applicant had litigated both in the Federal Court and the Full Court of the Federal Court and the High Court the question of whether or not the Tribunal's decision was attended by jurisdictional error. 2 In my opinion, the prospects of the applicant succeeding in any appeal, were time to be extended and leave given, are remote in the extreme. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal is refused with costs. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore. Associate: Dated: 20 February 2006 The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the First Respondent: A Chand Solicitor for the First Respondent: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 13 February 2006 Date of Judgment: 13 February 2006