FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
MZYZB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCA 510
Citation: MZYZB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCA 510 Appeal from: MZYZB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FMCA 1257 Parties: MZYZB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL File number: VID 1132 of 2012 Judge: BROMBERG J Date of judgment: 1 May 2013 Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 r 36.75 Cases cited: Al Mamun v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 1394 Date of hearing: 1 May 2013 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 R Watters Solicitor for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 1132 of 2012
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: MZYZB
AppellantAND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
BROMBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:
1 MAY 2013
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 1132 of 2012
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: MZYZB
AppellantAND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
BROMBERG J
DATE:
1 MAY 2013
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The appellant appeals from an order of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (now known as the Federal Circuit Court of Australia) made on 10 December 2012 which dismissed the appellant’s application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.
The appeal was called on this morning but there was no attendance by the appellant. I am satisfied on the basis of the material on the Court file and also the affidavit of Christopher Michael McDermott relied upon by the first respondent, that the appellant has been notified of today’s hearing.
The first respondent has applied pursuant to r 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 for an order that the appeal be dismissed by reason of the absence of the appellant. I see no reason such an order ought not be granted on the basis that the interests of justice will thereby be served: Al Mamun v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 1394 at [12]-[13] (Gray J).
The Court will make the following orders:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Bromberg. Associate:
Dated: 31 May 2013
- AGLC
- MZYZB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCA 510
- Case
- [2013] FCA 510
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the decision to cancel the visa was legally valid and whether the Minister had acted within the scope of the Migration Act 1958. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Minister correctly applied the statutory provisions concerning visa cancellation and whether the decision was reasonable and lawful. The court also had to examine the evidence and submissions presented by both parties to determine if the Minister's decision was supported by the material.
The court found that the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was based on proper legal grounds and was in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Migration Act. The court held that the Minister had correctly identified the reasons for visa cancellation and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. The court emphasised that the Minister's decision was not only lawful but also reasonable, given the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent, the Minister, for the appeal proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.
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.