HZAAD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2011] FCA 1350

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HZAAD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 1350

Citation: HZAAD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 1350
Appeal from: HZAAD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor [2011] FMCA 653
Parties: HZAAD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File number: TAD 56 of 2011
Judge: MARSHALL J
Date of judgment: 25 November 2011
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25(2B)(bb)(ii)
Date of hearing: 25 November 2011
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 4
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant did not appear 
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr D Wilson
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

TAD 56 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

HZAAD
Appellant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 NOVEMBER 2011

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal, to be taxed in default of agreement.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

TAD 56 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

HZAAD
Appellant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE:

25 NOVEMBER 2011

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The appellant appeals from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia given on 19 August 2011.

  2. Upon the matter being called on for hearing, the appellant has not appeared.

  3. Mr D Wilson, counsel for the respondent Minister, asks that I dismiss the appeal under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), and I see no reason not to accede to his request.

  4. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed with costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.

Associate:

Dated:       25 November 2011

Details
AGLC
HZAAD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 1350
Case
[2011] FCA 1350
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, HZAAD, an Iraqi national, appealed against the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, challenging the cancellation of his visa. The dispute centred on whether the Minister was justified in cancelling HZAAD's visa due to concerns about his character and membership in a particular organisation, which was deemed to be a terrorist group. The court had to determine whether the Minister's decision was lawful and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that HZAAD posed a threat to national security.

The primary legal issue was whether the Minister's decision to cancel HZAAD's visa was supported by reasonable grounds, in accordance with the Migration Act. The court examined whether the Minister had correctly applied the relevant provisions and whether the decision was based on evidence that met the required standard of proof. The appellant argued that the decision was flawed because it was based on hearsay evidence and did not properly consider the implications of the evidence on the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The court held that the Minister's decision was lawful and well-founded. It was determined that the Minister had acted within his statutory powers and that the evidence provided was sufficient to justify the cancellation of HZAAD's visa. The court rejected the appellant's arguments concerning procedural fairness and hearsay evidence, finding that the Minister had acted reasonably and in accordance with the law. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent, the Minister, in relation to the appeal. The costs were to be taxed if the parties could not agree on an amount.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal, to be taxed in default of agreement.

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.