FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| DURZI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2006] FMCA 240 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Migration Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a family residence visa – issue of number of overseas near relatives the applicant had – apparent error by the MRT in dealing with the issue of dependency – error not determinative – no jurisdictional error. |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.359A Migration Regulations 1994 |
| SZGKO vMinister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 1254 Minister for Immigration v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220 |
| Applicant: | LAWRENCE JOSEPH DURZI |
| First Respondent: Second Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG1454 of 2004 |
| Judgment of: | Driver FM |
| Hearing date: | 21 February 2006 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 3 March 2006 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Dr J Azzi |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Abrahams and Associates |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr J D Smith |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Blake Dawson Waldron |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed.
The applicant shall pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the proceedings, fixed in the sum of $5,000.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG1454 of 2004
| LAWRENCE JOSEPH DURZI |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
First Respondent
MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction and background
This is an application to review a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (“the MRT”) made on 12 March 2004. The applicant was notified of the decision by letter of the same date (court book, page 163). The MRT affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a sub class 835 remaining relative visa[1].
[1] The class of visa is more properly referred to as an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa
The background to this matter is adequately set out in the Minister’s written submissions in paragraphs 3-8.
The applicant is a citizen of Jordan who arrived in Australia on a visitor visa on 3 October 1998. On 1 November 1999, the applicant lodged an application for an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa on the basis that he met the criteria for the grant of that visa under subclass 835, namely that he was a remaining relative. The applicant was nominated for the grant of that visa by his brother, Christian Durzi, who is an Australian citizen and usually resident in Australia. At the time of the application the applicant had the following relatives who resided in the following countries: his mother - Lebanon; his brother, Carlos Durzi, - Lebanon; his sister, Yollanda Durzi, - Saudi Arabia and his two sons, Valentino and Oliver - Cyprus.
At the time of the application it was a criterion for the grant of the visa that the applicant be a remaining relative of a person who was a settled Australian citizen who was usually resident in Australia and who had nominated the applicant for the grant of the visa: Clause 835.212 in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Durzi v Minister for Immigration and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2006] FMCA 240
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court held that the Minister's decision to cancel the visa and order removal was supported by substantial evidence, and that the procedural fairness requirements were met. The court found that the decision-making process was not flawed, as the applicant had been provided with the opportunity to make submissions and present evidence. The court was satisfied that the Minister had considered all relevant material and that the decision was not irrational or unreasonable. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for judicial review and ordered the applicant to pay the Minister's costs of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The application is dismissed.
2.
The applicant shall pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the proceedings, fixed in the sum of $5,000.
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.