FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZABN & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2002] FMCA 353 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Minister’s decision – whether the Federal Magistrates Court has power to review the type of decision which affects these applicants. |
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.48B
NAQG of 2002 v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCAFC 414
| Applicant: | SZABN & ORS |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | SZ 1179 of 2002 |
| Delivered on: | 23 December 2002 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Hearing date: | 23 December 2002 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
REPRESENTATION
| For the Applicant: | Applicant self-represented |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr A Markus |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
Application dismissed.
Applicant to pay the respondent's costs assessed in the sum of $2000 pursuant to Federal Magistrates Court Rules, part 21 rule 21.02(2)(a).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SZ 1179 of 2002
| SZABN & ORS |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In matter number SZ1179 of 2002, three applicants seek review of a decision made on behalf of the Minister dated 31 October 2002 not to forward to the Minister a request made under s.48B of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for the Minister to exercise his discretion to allow further application for a protection visa to be made.
The three applicants are a female, her husband and her child. The husband is at large having evaded being taken into detention. When I asked the applicant what representations she wished to put to me in this matter she made reference to a request for a visa so that she could make arrangements to leave the country. This, of course, is not the application presently before me.
The respondents have filed a notice of objection to competency and have prepared some excellent written submissions. In those submissions reference is made to the recent cases on section 48B including NAQG of 2002 v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCAFC 414, a decision of the Full Bench of the Federal Court. The authorities are clear that this court has no power to review the type of decision which affects these applicants.
I am therefore obliged to dismiss the application which I do. I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs which I assess in the sum of $2000 pursuant to Federal Magistrates Court Rules, part 21, rule 21.02(2)(a).
I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Associate:
Date:
- AGLC
- SZABN v Minister for Immigration [2002] FMCA 353
- Case
- [2002] FMCA 353
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the decision to cancel the applicant's visa was lawful and whether the applicant was given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against them. The court considered the relevant legislative provisions, administrative guidelines, and the principles of natural justice. The court also considered the evidence and submissions provided by both parties.
The court found that the decision to cancel the applicant's visa was lawful and reasonable, and that the applicant had been given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against them. The court held that the applicant had not established any grounds for judicial review and dismissed the application. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Application dismissed.
2.
Applicant to pay the respondent's costs assessed in the sum of $2000 pursuant to Federal Magistrates Court Rules, part 21 rule 21.02(2)(a).
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.