Durzi v Minister for Immigration

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

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

  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.

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

  1. 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

  2. The background to this matter is adequately set out in the Minister’s written submissions in paragraphs 3-8. 

  3. 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. 

  4. 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

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2006] FMCA 240
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Durzi v Minister for Immigration involved the applicant, Durzi, seeking judicial review of the respondent's decision to cancel his visa and order his removal from Australia. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with examining the legality of the decision and the process by which it was made. The legal issues before the court revolved around whether the Minister's decision to cancel the applicant's visa and order his removal was lawful, and whether the procedural fairness was properly observed. The court had to assess if the Minister's decision was supported by relevant and sufficient evidence, and if the applicant was given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.

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.