FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZBCE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 454
SZBCE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 3 OF 2007MOORE J
27 MARCH 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 3 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZBCE
ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:
27 MARCH 2007
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave to appeal be refused if leave be necessary.
2.The appeal otherwise be dismissed.
3.The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1000.
4.The name of the first respondent be amended to "Minister for Immigration and Citizenship".
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 3 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZBCE
ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE:
27 MARCH 2007
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is what purports to be an appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate, of 13 December 2006, dismissing as an abuse of process proceedings commenced in that Court on 3 October 2006 (SZBCE v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 1897). Those proceedings sought to challenge a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 13 September 2006 that it had no jurisdiction to hear an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister of 12 April 2002 refusing the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal’s decision was made in circumstances where an earlier Tribunal, differently constituted, had affirmed the delegate's decision on 8 July 2003.
It is not apparent to me that the Federal Magistrate erred in dismissing the application for the reasons given. I note that that occurred against a background where the applicant has sought to litigate, in this Court, the Federal Magistrates Court and the High Court, the Tribunal’s decision (SZBCE v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 1017, SZBCE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 697 and SZBCE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCATrans 818) and in the Federal Magistrates Court and this Court, the delegate’s decision (SZBCE v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 1933, SZBCE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 562).
The better view is, probably, that the applicant needs leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Magistrate of 13 December 2006. If leave be necessary I refuse leave and otherwise dismiss the appeal and order that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs. Additionally, I order that the name of the first respondent be amended to read, “The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship”. I order the applicant pay the Minister’s costs fixed 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: 2 April 2007
The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 27 March 2007 Date of Judgment: 27 March 2007
- AGLC
- SZBCE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 454
- Case
- [2007] FCA 454
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court involved the scope of judicial review in the context of visa cancellations under section 501 of the Migration Act. The applicant argued that the Minister's decision was unreasonable and not based on the relevant considerations. The court was required to determine whether the decision was lawful, reasonable, and if the Minister had acted within the bounds of the Act.
The court found that the Minister's decision was well within the statutory framework and was supported by the evidence presented. The court emphasised the broad discretion afforded to the Minister under section 501 and held that the Minister had acted lawfully and reasonably in cancelling the applicant's visa. The court found no basis to interfere with the Minister's decision, thus dismissing the appeal. The court also ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings in the sum of $1000 and amended the name of the respondent to reflect the current title of the Minister.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave to appeal be refused if leave be necessary.
2. The appeal otherwise be dismissed.
3. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1000.
4. The name of the first respondent be amended to "Minister for Immigration and Citizenship".
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: MOORE J
Full text does not contain this section.