CZAH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 86 (13 February 2006)

Last Updated: 20 February 2006

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CZAH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 86

MIGRATION – no point of principle




































CZAH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
ACD 21/2005

MOORE J
13 FEBRUARY 2006
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	ACD 21 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	CZAH APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	13 FEBRUARY 2006
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs.
3. The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as a respondent.

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	ACD 21 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	CZAH APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	13 FEBRUARY 2006
PLACE:	CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 This is an application for an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 9 August 2005. That judgment concerned an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 17 June 2003. The application was dismissed by the Federal Magistrate as incompetent, because the Federal Magistrate concluded that the Tribunal's decision was a privative clause decision and in relation to such a decision applications had to be made within specified times. The Federal Magistrate was, in my view, correct in reaching the conclusion he did. It was against a background in which the applicant had litigated both in the Federal Court and the Full Court of the Federal Court and the High Court the question of whether or not the Tribunal's decision was attended by jurisdictional error.

2 In my opinion, the prospects of the applicant succeeding in any appeal, were time to be extended and leave given, are remote in the extreme. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal is refused with costs.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated: 20 February 2006

The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondent:	A Chand
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	13 February 2006
Date of Judgment:	13 February 2006