SZBCA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2007] FCA 2004

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBCA v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 2004

SZBCA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION FOR CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD1432 OF 2007

MOORE J
13 DECEMBER 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD1432 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZBCA
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION FOR CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 DECEMBER 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the Minister's costs fixed in the sum of $1000.

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

NSD1432 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZBCA
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION FOR CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

13 DECEMBER 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 4 July 2007.  The judgment concerned an application for judicial review seeking to challenge a decision of a delegate of the Minister and also the Refugee Review Tribunal, concerning an application by the applicant for a protection visa.  The judgment of the Federal Magistrate, given on 4 July 2007, was given against a background in which the applicant had sought to challenge both in this Court (SZBCA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 334 and SZBCA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 857) and the Federal Magistrates Court (SZBCA v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 998 and SZBCA v Minister for Immigration and Anor [2006] FMCA 246) together with the High Court (SZBCA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCATrans 627 and SZBCA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] HCATrans 030), the underlying decision to refuse to grant him a protection visa and attendant decisions of the Tribunal.

  2. The Minister no longer presses that the application to the Federal Magistrates Court was out of time insofar as it related to the Tribunal and otherwise seeks to support the orders made by the Federal Magistrate.  It is not apparent to me that the Federal Magistrate erred in making those orders. 

  3. There was no appearance by the applicant.  It is not apparent to me that there is any prospect of any appeal succeeding and accordingly I propose to dismiss the application for leave to appeal, with costs.  I fix those costs in the sum of $1000. 

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 2007

Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant did not appear.
Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing: 13 December 2007
Date of Judgment: 13 December 2007
Details
AGLC
SZBCA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 2004
Case
[2007] FCA 2004
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was between SZBCA, the applicant, and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the Minister's decision to cancel their visa, a decision which had already been subject to internal review and subsequent judicial review in the Federal Court. The applicant's visa had been cancelled on the basis that they constituted a danger to the Australian community. The Full Court of the Federal Court heard the application for leave to appeal.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant had demonstrated that the primary judge erred in their consideration of whether the visa cancellation decision was lawful. This included whether the primary judge erred in their assessment of the material before them, including the evidence of expert witnesses and the statutory criteria under which the visa cancellation was authorised. The applicant argued that the primary judge had failed to properly consider the evidence and had erred in their application of the law.

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient error in the primary judge's reasoning or application of the law to warrant leave to appeal. The court held that the primary judge had appropriately considered the material before them and had applied the correct legal principles in reaching their decision. The court further found that the primary judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and that there was no error of law or significant error of fact. Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the Minister's costs in the sum of $1000.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the Minister's costs fixed in the sum of $1000.

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.