Syed v Minister for Immigration

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SYED & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2011] FMCA 397
MIGRATION – Application for extension of time to review decision of MRT – where no reasonably arguable case – where applicant applied for Ministerial intervention under s.351.
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.116(3), 351, 476, 477
Migration Regulations 1994, r.2.43(2)(b)(i)
Daniel v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 21

First Applicant:

Second Applicant:

Third Applicant:

Fourth Applicant:

Fifth Applicant:

ZULFIQAR ALI SYED

BUSHRA ZAINAB SYED

SAIMABSAR ALI RIZUI SYED

EZRAM ABBAS ALI RIZUI SYED

ABIHA RUBAB SYED

First Respondent:

Second Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: DNG 2 of 2011
Judgment of: Raphael FM
Hearing date: 17 May 2011
Date of Last Submission: 17 May 2011
Delivered at: Darwin
Delivered on: 17 May 2011

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicants: In person
Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

  1. Substantive application dismissed.

  2. Applicant to pay the First Respondents costs assessed in the sum of $4,000.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

DNG 2 of 2011

ZULFIQAR ALI SYED

First Applicant

BUSHRA ZAINAB SYED

Second Applicant

SAIMABSAR ALI RIZUI SYED

Third Applicant

EZRAM ABBAS ALI RIZUI SYED

Fourth Applicant

ABIHA RUBAB SYED

Fifth Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 5 January 2011 Mr Syed applied to this court to review a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal that had been handed down on 6 June 2010. Section 477 of the Migration Act 1958 (the “Act”) places time limits on applications to this court for a remedy to be granted in exercise of the court’s original jurisdiction under 476.  The time limit is 35 days from the date of the Migration decision.  The full wording of that section is:

    “Time limits on applications to the Federal Magistrates Court

    (1)  An application to the Federal Magistrates Court for a remedy to be granted in exercise of the court's original jurisdiction under section 476 in relation to a migration decision must be made to the court within 35 days of the date of the migration decision.

    (2)  The Federal Magistrates Court may, by order, extend that 35 day period as the Federal Magistrates Court considers appropriate if:

    (a)  an application for that order has been made in writing to the Federal Magistrates Court specifying why the applicant considers that it is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to make the order; and

    (b) the Federal Magistrates Court is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to make the order.

    (3)      In this section:

    "date of the migration decision" means:

    (a)  in the case of a migration decision made under subsection 43(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 --the date of the written decision under that subsection; or

    (b)  in the case of a written migration decision made by the Migration Review Tribunal or the Refugee Review Tribunal--the date of the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Syed 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
[2011] FMCA 397
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Syed v Minister for Immigration, the applicant sought judicial review of the decision of the Minister for Immigration to cancel his visa. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, which was required to determine whether the Minister’s decision was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair. The applicant argued that the Minister had failed to consider relevant information and that the decision to cancel his visa was therefore unreasonable.

The court considered whether the Minister had exercised his discretion lawfully, and whether the decision was open to judicial review. The court examined the applicable statutory provisions, the nature of the Minister’s discretion, and the evidence before the Minister at the time of the decision. The court found that the Minister had considered all relevant information, and that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa was lawful and rational. The court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was procedurally unfair.

The court dismissed the substantive application, finding that the Minister’s decision was lawful and rational. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent in the sum of $4,000.00. The court found that the applicant’s application was without merit, and that the First Respondent was entitled to costs under the relevant statutory provisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

Substantive application dismissed.

2.

Applicant to pay the First Respondents costs assessed in the sum of $4,000.00.

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.