Applicant S1941/2003 v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 85 (1 February 2008)

APPLICANT S1941/2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 2158 OF 2007

REEVES J
1 FEBRUARY 2008
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2158 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT S1941/2003 Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

JUDGE:	REEVES J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 FEBRUARY 2008
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

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 2158 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT S1941/2003 Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

JUDGE:	REEVES J
DATE:	1 FEBRUARY 2008
PLACE:	SYDNEY

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.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Reeves.

Applicant:	In person

Counsel for the First Respondent:	Ms S Kantaria

Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Clayton Utz

Counsel for the Second Respondent:	No appearance

Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	No appearance

Date of Hearing:	1 February 2008

Date of Judgment:	1 February 2008