SZHZX v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 72

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZHZX v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 72 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 424A SZHZX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2006] FMCA 1065 SZHZX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1469 SZHZX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2007] HCA Trans 363 SZHZX v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 2051 SZHZX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 37 OF 2008

BUCHANAN J

14 FEBRUARY 2008

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 37OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZHZX

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: BUCHANAN J DATE OF ORDER: 14 FEBRUARY 2008

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed with 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 37 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZHZX

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: BUCHANAN J

DATE: 14 FEBRUARY 2008

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BUCHANAN J: 1 This is an application for leave to appeal against an interlocutory judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia ('the FMCA') dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the RRT') as an abuse of process (SZHZX v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 2051). 2 The applicant is a citizen of India. He arrived in Australia on 11 June 2005 and on 22 July 2005 applied for a protection visa. On 11 August 2005 a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship refused his application. He applied to the RRT for review of the delegate's decision. On 17 November 2005 the RRT affirmed the delegate's decision. The applicant thereupon sought judicial review of the RRT decision in the FMCA. That application was dismissed (SZHZX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2006] FMCA 1065). An appeal to this Court from the decision of the FMCA was also dismissed (SZHZX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1469). In his judgment Nicholson J identified the grounds which were pursued in the FMCA and the different grounds which were later pursued in this Court. Even though the appeal was liable to be dismissed because the pursuit in this Court of different grounds of appeal was not directed to showing error in the decision of the FMCA, Nicholson J dealt with the additional matters raised by the appellant and rejected his arguments. A subsequent application for special leave to appeal to the High Court was refused (SZHZX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2007] HCA Trans 363). 3 Shortly after the dismissal of his application for special leave to appeal to the High Court the appellant brought a further application to the FMCA. On 4 December 2007 that application was dismissed as an abuse of process (SZHZX v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 2051). That is the decision to which the present application for leave to appeal relates. 4 The applicant filed no written submissions in support of his application for leave to appeal. At the hearing of his application for leave to appeal he said that he had nothing to add to what appeared in the application. 5 The application for leave to appeal contends that the FMCA was in error in not finding that the RRT was in breach of its obligations under s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). That is the same issue which the applicant ventilated before this Court in his earlier appeal. The latest proceedings commenced by him before the FMCA were an abuse of process. There is no error in the decision of the FMCA under appeal. The appeal must be dismissed. It is appropriate to dismiss it with costs. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Buchanan.