PERFECTO v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2022] NZHC 639

PERFECTO v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2022] NZHC 639 [29 March 2022]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE[2022] NZHC 639IN THE MATTER OF Refugee and Protection AppealBETWEEN MARLOWE JAMES DIOCARES PERFECTOAppellantAND IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNALRespondentCounsel: Applicant is self-representedJudgment: 29 March 2022(Determined on the papers)JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J[1] The appellant (Mr Perfecto) has endeavoured to file personally documents that he describes as a notice of appeal and an application for judicial review, which broadly seek what is described as:"1. An order that the decision of the Tribunal, Immigration Assessment Authority or Minister be quashed.2. A writ of mandamus directed to the Tribunal, Immigration Assessment Authority or Minister, requiring them to determine the applicant's application according to law."[2] From these documents it would seem that Mr Perfecto seeks to apply for asylum and/or protected person status in terms of the Immigration Act 2009, althoughas best as can be ascertained, there has been no decision made by any lower authority which is able to be appealed to or judicially reviewed by this Court.[3] I am informed that when Mr Perfecto was asked by Registry staff of the Court for the decision that he seeks to appeal/review, he filed a letter dated 20 July 2021 from the Immigration and Protection Tribunal which states that there was no decision made and that the Tribunal itself did not have jurisdiction. Mr Perfecto it seems, also emailed letters to the Registry office of this Court, being letters he received from Immigration New Zealand which confirmed that an application for protected person status was withdrawn and describing how this affected Mr Perfecto's visa.[4] Given that there was no decision identified by Mr Perfecto from any lower authorities, the documents including his notice of appeal and application for judicial review were not accepted by the Registrar for filing.[5] Mr Perfecto now seeks to review the decision of the Registrar not to accept these documents for filing. In effect, he has applied pursuant to r 2.11 of the High Court Rules 2016 for a review of the Registrar's decision.[6] Rule 2.11 of the High Court Rules 2016 relevant states:2.11 Review of Registrar's decision(1) An affected party to a proceeding or an intended proceeding may apply to a Judge by interlocutory application for a review of any of the following:(a) a Registrar's exercise of jurisdiction:(b) a Registrar's refusal to file a document tendered for filing:(c) a Registrar's refusal to perform a duty placed on him or her under these rules.(2) The Judge may, on review, make any orders he or she thinks just.[7] McGechan on Procedure at para HR 2.11.02 addresses a review of a Registrar's refusal to accept a document for filing which applies to the case here. In that paragraph the learned authors state:" a Registrar's refusal to accept a statement for filing generally arises through a view taken, rightly or wrongly, that the document is not in the form required by the Rules. Applications for review of such a decision could well be combined with an application under r 1.5 seeking an order excusing non- compliance. In addition, a Registrar is entitled to examine the substance of a document to see, for example whether it is plainly an abuse of the Court's process or contrary to a Court direction: Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2017] NZHC 2082 at [17]."[8] McGechan on Procedure at para HR 2.11.01 goes on to note:" a Judge has inherent power to direct and supervise Registrars in relation to the business of the Court: O'Neill v Bridgeman [2020] NZCA 460 at [24] including to review a Registrar's decision to accept a document for filing:Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2017] NZHC 2082 at [14], [15]. [9] In this case despite Mr Perfecto's notice of appeal specifically stating that it required an order from the Court "that the decision of the Tribunal, Immigration Assessment Authority or Minister be quashed", there was no identified decision from any such lower authority. That said, I am satisfied the Registrar's decision refusing to accept the documents in question for filing was appropriate here.[10] Mr Perfecto's application for review of that decision pursuant to r 2.11 of the High Court Rules is declined.Gendall JCopy to:Mr Perfecto