FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZAHC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural &
Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 753SZAHC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL
& INDIGENOUS AFFAIRSNSD 670 of 2005
LINDGREN J
8 JUNE 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 670 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT
BETWEEN:
SZAHC
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER:
8 JUNE 2005
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
3.The respondent be entitled to a fixed sum of $300 in lieu of taxed costs, in respect of the costs referred to in order 2.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 670 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT
BETWEEN:
SZAHC
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
LINDGREN J
DATE:
8 JUNE 2005
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The appellant appeals from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia given on 1 April 2005.
Upon the appeal being called on for hearing, the appellant has not appeared.
Ms M Asimus, the solicitor 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 her request.
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lindgren. Associate:
Dated: 8 June 2005
The Appellant did not appear Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms M Asimus, Blake Dawson Waldron Date of Hearing: 8 June 2005 Date of Judgment: 8 June 2005
- AGLC
- SZAHC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & [2005] FCA 753
- Case
- [2005] FCA 753
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the Minister's decision was lawful and reasonable. The court needed to determine whether the evidence supported the conclusion that the appellant's conduct was detrimental to Australia's interests. The court also examined the proportionality of the Minister's decision in light of the appellant's personal circumstances and contributions to society.
The court held that the Minister's decision was lawful and reasonable. The evidence presented was sufficient to support the conclusion that the appellant's conduct was contrary to Australia's interests, particularly considering the appellant's immigration history and the nature of the activities in question. The court found that the Minister had exercised his discretion appropriately, taking into account all relevant factors. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. The respondent was also granted a fixed sum of $300 in lieu of taxed costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
3. The respondent be entitled to a fixed sum of $300 in lieu of taxed costs, in respect of the costs referred to in order 2.
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
Established by: LINDGREN J
Full text does not contain this section.