FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S1941/2003 v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 85

APPLICANT S1941/2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 2158OF 2007

REEVES J

1 FEBRUARY 2008

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.                   Application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2.                   Applicant to pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,200.00.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     This is an application for leave to appeal under section 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), against the judgment of Barnes FM, delivered 30 October 2007.  Barnes FM dismissed the applicant’s application for review of the tribunal’s decision handed down 12 July 2007, on the application of the first respondent under order 13.10, sub‑rule (a) of the Federal Magistrates Courts Rules 2001 on the grounds that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting his application.  At the hearing before me, the applicant appeared in person and represented himself and Ms Kantaria appeared for the first respondent.  The applicant made oral submissions through an interpreter and Ms Kantaria made written and oral submissions. 

2                     The long history of this matter is set out at paragraphs 3 to 6 inclusive, of the Federal Magistrate’s decision.  In summary, including the decision appealed from and this appeal, the applicant has applied to or appealed to the tribunal twice, the Federal Magistrates Court twice, the Federal Court of Australia four times and the High Court of Australia once.  This is, therefore, the ninth review of his case.  In an application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory order of this kind the applicant is required to satisfy the court that the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court is attenuated with sufficient doubt to warrant it being reconsidered and that substantial injustice will result if it is not.

3                     In my view the applicant has failed to demonstrate any error on the part of the Federal Magistrate in concluding that the application had no reasonable prospects of success, in relation to any of the matters raised by the applicant as grounds for review, including the changed circumstances in Bangladesh, which was the particular matter the applicant raised in his submissions before me.  If there is no error it follows that no substantial injustice will occur if the decision is not reviewed.  I therefore order that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed and I order the applicant to pay the first respondent’s costs fixed at the sum of $1200.

Associate:

Dated:         15 February 2008