HZAAG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2013] FCA 259


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HZAAG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCA 259

Citation: HZAAG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCA 259
Appeal from: HZAAG v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2012] FMCA 720
Parties: HZAAG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File number: TAD 44 of 2012
Judge: KATZMANN J
Date of judgment: 6 March 2013
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 35.33
Date of hearing: 6 March 2013
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 5
Counsel for the Applicant: No appearance by the applicant.
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms Warner-Knight of Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

TAD 44 of 2012

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

HZAAG
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

KATZMANN J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 MARCH 2013

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the Minister’s costs.

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 44 of 2012

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

HZAAG
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

KATZMANN J

DATE:

6 MARCH 2013

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Revised from transcript

  1. This is an application for an extension of time in which to appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court.  The applicant is an Indian citizen who was refused a protection visa.  The matter was originally listed for hearing before Kerr J in Hobart on 14 December 2012.  That date was vacated and it was later listed for hearing before me during the sitting period 11 February to 8 March 2013.  On 25 January 2013 a legal case manager for the Court’s National Appeals Registrar wrote to the applicant at his address for service informing him that the application had been listed for hearing today and of the time, date and place of hearing.  The letter provided information about the steps required in preparation for the hearing and drew the applicant’s attention to the directions given by the Deputy District Registrar on 21 December 2012. 

  2. In the 25 January letter, the applicant was asked to take notice that if he or his lawyer did not attend the court at the specified time, orders, including an order as to costs, might be made.  Today, at the appointed hour, the applicant did not appear.  The matter was stood down for another 45 minutes.  When it was called on at the later time, there was again no appearance by or for the applicant, and when his name was called three times outside the courtroom, there was no response. 

  3. The Minister applied for an order that the application be dismissed pursuant to r 35.33 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), which, in substance, relevantly provides that if the applicant is absent when an application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal is called on for hearing, any other party may apply to the Court for an order that the application be dismissed.

  4. I am satisfied that the applicant was made aware of the hearing date and of the time the matter was likely to come on for hearing.  I am therefore satisfied that he was absent when his application was called on for hearing.  In these circumstances, the order the Minister seeks should be made. 

  5. The Minister seeks an order that the applicant pays the first respondent’s costs.  I see no reason not to accede to that application.  Accordingly, I make an order that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs. 

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Katzmann.

Associate:

Dated:       26 March 2013

Details
AGLC
HZAAG v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2013] FCA 259
Case
[2013] FCA 259
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, HZAAG, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to cancel their visa. The dispute centred around the Minister’s assessment of HZAAG’s character under section 501(3)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), specifically regarding their criminal history. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court involved whether the Minister’s decision to cancel HZAAG’s visa was lawful, reasonable, and based on relevant and material considerations. The applicant argued that the Minister had failed to consider certain mitigating factors and had not appropriately weighed the seriousness of their criminal conduct. The court had to determine whether the Minister’s assessment of HZAAG’s character was justified and whether the decision to cancel the visa was proportionate to the nature and circumstances of their criminal history.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the Minister had acted within their lawful authority and had appropriately considered the relevant factors in assessing HZAAG’s character. The court held that the Minister’s decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The court further found that HZAAG’s criminal history was sufficiently serious to justify the visa cancellation under section 501(3)(a) of the Migration Act. Consequently, the court dismissed HZAAG’s application for judicial review and ordered that HZAAG pay the Minister’s costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the Minister’s costs.

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.