Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZGIZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1475
SZGIZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1480 OF 2007
MOORE J
18 SEPTEMBER 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1480 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZGIZ
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER: 18 SEPTEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The application for leave be dismissed if leave be necessary. 3. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1100. 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 1480 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZGIZ
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MOORE J
DATE: 18 SEPTEMBER 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I am presently dealing with what should probably be an application for leave to appeal though what was filed in this Court was a notice of appeal. It concerns a decision of a Federal Magistrate of 20 July 2007 dismissing an application seeking judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 12 June 2007: see SZGIZ v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 1175.. The Tribunal determined it had no jurisdiction to entertain an application to review a decision of a delegate of the Minister of 18 March 2005 refusing to grant the appellant a protection visa. That was the second occasion on which the applicant sought review of the delegate's decision. The first occasion resulted in a decision of the Tribunal of 22 April 2005 affirming the delegate's decision. 2 The Federal Magistrate concluded that the application was an abuse of process. That conclusion appears to be correct, given the lengthy and unsuccessful history of litigation in which the applicant has sought to challenge the Tribunal's decision: see SZGIZ v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 114, SZGIZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1739 and SZGIZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Anor [2006] HCATrans 371. 3 There has been no appearance for the applicant or appellant. Correspondence was sent to him both by the Court and the solicitor appearing for the Minister. Indeed, the Court received written correspondence from the applicant prior to the hearing today indicating that he needs a Bengali interpreter. I am satisfied he is aware that the proceedings were listed for hearing today and this afternoon. 4 I propose to dismiss the application and I order that the applicant pay the Minister's costs. I fix those costs in the sum of $1100.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate