FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AZZ20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 414
Appeal from: AZZ20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Anor (No 2) [2020] FCCA 3405 File number: NSD 53 of 2021 Judgment of: MARKOVIC J Date of judgment: 11 April 2022 Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 36.75(1) Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 7 Date of hearing: 11 April 2022 Counsel for the Respondents: Mr T Reilly Solicitor for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor ORDERS
NSD 53 of 2021 BETWEEN: AZZ20
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
MARKOVIC J
DATE OF ORDER:
11 APRIL 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to rule 36.75(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) the appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, as agreed or taxed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT)MARKOVIC J:
These appeals, commenced by each of AZZ20 and BAA20, who are brothers, are listed before me for hearing this morning. Although they raise a similar, if not identical issue, they were to be heard one after the other. They were both listed for hearing commencing at 10.15 am.
The appeals were originally listed for hearing on a date in 2021 but, following the appellants’ solicitor filing a notice of ceasing to act in each appeal and in light of the ongoing effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, the hearing date was adjourned until such time as the Court could hear the appeals in person.
The appeals were subsequently set down for hearing today, 11 April 2022, commencing at 10.15 am. An email was sent to the parties by an officer of the registry of this Court on 14 December 2021, informing the parties that was to be the date for hearing.
On 8 April 2022 both the solicitors for the first respondent and the Court sent emails by way of reminder to the appellants, noting that the matter was listed for hearing this morning.
This morning when the matter was called for hearing there was no appearance by or on behalf of either of the appellants. The appeals were called three times outside the courtroom and it remains the case that there is no appearance by or on behalf of the appellants.
The Minister has applied pursuant to r 36.75(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) for the appeals to be dismissed because when they were called on for hearing the appellant in each case was absent. In the circumstances, I will make an order in each of the appeals dismissing the appeal. I am satisfied that the appellant in each case has had notice of the date of hearing of his appeal, that both appellants were reminded that the appeals were listed today at 10.15 am and that they were to be held in person.
I will make an order in each appeal pursuant to r 36.75(1) of the Rules dismissing the appeal.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Markovic. Associate:
Dated: 20 April 2022
- AGLC
- AZZ20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 414
- Case
- [2022] FCA 414
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues in this appeal involved the interpretation of the Migration Act and the relevant regulations, focusing on the statutory criteria for visa cancellation on character grounds. The court had to assess whether the decision-maker had correctly applied the law, exercised their discretion appropriately, and whether there were any errors of law that warranted the quashing of the decision. The appellant argued that the decision was unreasonable and that the decision-maker had failed to properly consider certain evidence and mitigating circumstances.
The Federal Court, in delivering its judgment, found that the decision-maker had correctly applied the relevant statutory criteria and exercised their discretion appropriately. The court held that the decision was not in error and that there were no grounds to interfere with the Minister's decision. The court rejected the appellant's arguments, finding that the evidence and arguments presented did not establish any error of law or procedural unfairness. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision to cancel the visa was upheld.
The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, as agreed or taxed. This outcome reflects the court's determination that the decision-maker had correctly applied the law and exercised their discretion in accordance with the statutory requirements. The orders finalised the proceedings, with the appellant being liable for the costs as per the agreement or as taxed by the court.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to rule 36.75(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) the appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, as agreed or taxed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.