FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NAHR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 211
NAHR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 2279 OF 2006
MOORE J
27 FEBRUARY 2007
SYDNEY
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
NSD 2279 OF 2006 |
|
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
BETWEEN: |
NAHR Applicant
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent
|
|
MOORE J |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
27 FEBRUARY 2007 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
SYDNEY |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1600.
3. The name of the first respondent be amended to the 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'.
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 2279 OF 2006 |
|
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
BETWEEN: |
NAHR Applicant
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent
|
|
JUDGE: |
MOORE J |
|
DATE: |
27 FEBRUARY 2007 |
|
PLACE: |
SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate given on 1 November 2006: see NAHR v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 1623. That judgment concerned an application seeking judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 13 September 2006. The Tribunal decided that it had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for review of the delegate's decision of 3 January 2001 to refuse the applicant a protection visa, because the Tribunal had already reviewed the delegate's decision. In substance the Tribunal decided that it had earlier exhausted its powers and it had no further statutory functions to perform.
2 The Federal Magistrate dismissed the application as an abuse of process. It is not apparent to me that the Federal Magistrate erred in dealing with the matter in this way. The application for leave is refused. There are no prospects of success in the appeal if leave were to be given. I note that this is an application made against a background of extensive litigation in the Federal Magistrates Court, this Court and the High Court: see NAHR v Minister for Immigration [2003] FMCA 318, NAHR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1295, NAHR v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 1193, NAHR v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 1949 and NAHR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 503. The applicant made two applications for special leave to appeal to the High Court, on 12 December 2003 and 14 July 2004, both of which were deemed abandoned.
3 I order the application for leave is dismissed and I order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs. I fix those costs in the sum of $1600.
|
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore. |
Associate:
Dated: 2 March 2007
|
The Applicant appeared in person |
|
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Blake Dawson Waldron |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
27 February 2007 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
27 February 2007 |
