CZAJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 88 (13 February 2006)

Last Updated: 20 February 2006

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CZAJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 88

MIGRATION – no point of principle

































CZAJ V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
ACD 23/2005

MOORE J
13 FEBRUARY 2006
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	ACD 23 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	CZAJ 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 to extend time within which to seek leave to appeal is 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 23 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	CZAJ 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 against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 10 August 2005. The Federal Magistrate dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 18 March 2004. The Federal Magistrate did so on the basis that the application for judicial review was incompetent since the Tribunal's decision was a privative clause decision and the time had expired in which any application for judicial review could be made. In my opinion, the Federal Magistrate was correct in reaching that conclusion. It was reached against a background in which there had been earlier litigation, in the Federal Magistrates Court, the Federal Court and the High Court, concerning the Tribunal's decision.

2 In my view, the applicant has no prospects of succeeding in any appeal if time were to be extended and leave given. In those circumstances, the application 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 Second Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	13 February 2006
Date of Judgment:	13 February 2006