FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZAIZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2004] FMCA 22 |
| MIGRATION – Review of RRT decision – where applicant’s oral testimony conflicted with written submissions – whether RRT failed to consider whether applicant would be afforded effective state protection – where applicant claimed that he was a victim of extortion targeted because he was a successful Hindu businessman – whether RRT limited its consideration of persecution to the persecutor’s personal motivations and did not consider whether the convention based reason was the “essential and significant reason” for the alleged persecution – whether RRT relied on country information which post dated the events in question – where applicant claimed that it was not reasonable for him to relocate within his country of nationality because he would continue to suffer the same persecution unless he abandoned his occupation and alleged political activity. |
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.91R(1)(a)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules, P 21 r 21.02(2)(a)
Welivita v Minister for Immigration (unreported) 18 November 1996
Minister for Immigration v Khawar [2002] CLR 1
Labara v MIMA [2002] FCAFC 145
A & Ors v Minister for Immigration [1999] FCA 116
Minister for Immigration v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam [1999] 93 FCR 220
NAFT v Minister for Immigration [2003] FCAFC 254
Minister for Immigration v Yusuf [2001] 206 CLR 323
Minister for Immigration v Eshutu (1999) 197 CLR 611
Minister for Immigration v Guo (1997) 197 CLR 559
S395 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration [2003] HCA 71
“The Open Society and its Enemies” Karl Popper, Routledge 1945
| Applicant: | SZAIZ |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | SZ 536 of 2003 |
| Delivered on: | 23 January 2004 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Hearing date: | 15 January 2004 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr B Zipser |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr J Potts |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
Application dismissed.
Applicant to pay respondent’s costs in the sum of $4,750 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SZ 536 of 2003
| SZAIZ |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He arrived in Australia on 25 July 1999. On 6 August 1999 the applicant lodged an application for a protection (Class XA) visa. On 22 October 1999 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa and on 17 November 1999 the applicant applied for a review of that decision. The applicant was represented by a firm of immigration lawyers before the Tribunal and submitted to the Tribunal a considerable quantity of information and representations. The applicant gave oral evidence to the Tribunal on 18 July 2002. The Tribunal provided the applicant with an opportunity to supply it with additional information. The Tribunal came to its decision on 20 November 2002 and handed it down on 17…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read SZAIZ 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2004] FMCA 22
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, it had to assess whether the Minister’s decision was made in accordance with the applicable laws, specifically under section 501 of the Migration Act. Secondly, it needed to consider whether the decision was reasonable and whether the Minister had exercised his discretion properly. Additionally, the court examined whether the applicant's visa cancellation was proportionate to the alleged breaches and whether there were any procedural errors in the decision-making process.
In examining the Minister’s decision, the court found that it was legally sound and within the Minister's discretionary powers. The decision was supported by sufficient evidence and adhered to the principles of natural justice. The court held that the Minister had acted reasonably and appropriately in cancelling the applicant’s visa due to the character concerns raised. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the court ordered that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs in the sum of $4,750.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Application dismissed.
2.
Applicant to pay respondent’s costs in the sum of $4,750 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
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.