SZBBM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2006] FCA 1754


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBBM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1754

SZBBM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1821 OF 2006

MOORE J
14 DECEMBER 2006
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1821 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZBBM
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 DECEMBER 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application of 20 September 2006 be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $500.

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 1821 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZBBM
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

14 DECEMBER 2006

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 6 September 2006 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 23 June 2003 and handed down on 22 July 2003.  The Tribunal affirmed a decision of the then Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

  2. There has been earlier litigation in this Court, the Federal Magistrates Court and the High Court in relation to the same matter.  A previous application for judicial review of the Tribunal decision to the Federal Magistrates Court was dismissed on 19 November 2004: see SZBBM v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 872. An appeal from that decision to this Court was dismissed by Madgwick J on 26 May 2005: see SZBBM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 700. An application for special leave to appeal that Federal Court decision to the High Court was dismissed by Gummow J on 9 November 2005: see SZBBM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCATrans 909.

  3. In the decision from which leave is sought to appeal, the Federal Magistrate dismissed the application on several grounds, including that it constituted an abuse of process: see SZBBM v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 1361 at [18]. It is not apparent to me that the Federal Magistrate erred in doing so. Accordingly, I propose to dismiss the application for leave with costs. I fix those costs in the sum of $500.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:        20 December 2006

The Applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 14 December 2006
Date of Judgment: 14 December 2006
Details
AGLC
SZBBM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1754
Case
[2006] FCA 1754
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SZBBM, an individual whose identity is protected by a pseudonym, sought judicial review of the decision of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant them a protection visa. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the minister's decision was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The primary issue before the court was whether the minister correctly applied the relevant statutory criteria when deciding not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The court also needed to consider whether the minister had correctly assessed the applicant's credibility and the evidence presented.

The court found that the minister had correctly applied the statutory criteria in assessing the applicant's eligibility for a protection visa. The court held that the minister's decision was supported by the evidence before them, and that the applicant had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to their home country. The court further found that the minister had properly assessed the applicant's credibility and the evidence presented. The court was satisfied that the minister had considered all relevant material and had not failed to take into account any significant matter. The court also found that the decision-making process was procedurally fair.

The court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review and ordered that the applicant pay the minister's costs in the sum of $500. The court held that the minister's decision to refuse the applicant a protection visa was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the minister's decision was in any way flawed. The court held that the minister's decision was based on a proper consideration of the evidence and the applicable statutory criteria. The court was satisfied that the minister had exercised their discretion in a manner that was consistent with the law.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application of 20 September 2006 be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $500.

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

MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.