Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZHUE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 2005
SZHUE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1592 OF 2007
MOORE J
13 DECEMBER 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1592 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZHUE
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER: 13 DECEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the Minister's costs fixed in the sum of $1000. 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 1592 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZHUE
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MOORE J
DATE: 13 DECEMBER 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 30 July 2007, dismissing an application under rule 44(12)(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001: SZHUE v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 1298. The Federal Magistrate was not satisfied that there was an arguable case for the relief claimed, which concerned a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 12 June 2007. The Tribunal had decided that it did not have jurisdiction to review a decision of a delegate of the first respondent of 25 August 2005, having already reviewed the decision some years earlier. The first application for review to the Tribunal was the subject of a decision of the Tribunal of 27 October 2005 to affirm the delegate's decision. 2 It appears to me that the Tribunal was correct in reaching the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the second application and accordingly the Federal Magistrate did not err in dismissing the matter under rule 44. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is doomed to fail and ought be dismissed. I order that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed and the applicant pay the first respondent's costs. I order that costs be fixed in the sum of $1000. 3 I note that the Federal Magistrate's decision was also made against a background in which the applicant had previously sought to litigate, in the Federal Magistrates Court, this Court and in the High Court, issues concerning the delegate's decision and the first Tribunal's decision: SZHUE v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 402; SZHUE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1094 and SZHUE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] HCATrans 178. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.
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