SZBCF v Minister for Immigration - [2006] FMCA 1096

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBCF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2006] FMCA 1096

MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal affirming decision not to grant protection visa – citizen of India claiming well-founded fear of persecution – previous application for review.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Jurisdiction – where decision made by Refugee Review tribunal on 30 June 2003 and handed down on 25 July 2003 – where applicant claims to have been notified on 2 July 2003 or 26 August 2003 – where application made more than 28 days after notification – court has no power to grant an extension of time where application filed more than 84 days after notification – no jurisdiction.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss. 474, 477

Migration Litigation Reform Act 2005 clause 42, Sch. 1, Part 2

Applicant:

SZBCF

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File No:

SYG 1739 of 2006

Delivered on:

24 July 2006

Delivered at:

Sydney

Hearing date:

24 July 2006

Judgment of:

Scarlett FM

REPRESENTATION

Applicant:

In Person

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Mr Prince pro bono

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Ms Blackman

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

The Application is dismissed.
The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $300.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1739 of 2006

SZBCF

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 30^th June 2003 and handed down on 25^th July 2003. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of the delegate of the Minister not to grant the Applicant a protection visa.
The application is out of time. The Applicant filed his application on 20^th June 2006, which is considerably more than 28 days after he says he was notified of the decision. The notification was in fact made in 2003, well before 1^st December 2005. As the notification was made before 1^st December 2005, according to the transitional provisions in clause 42, Schedule 1, part 2 of the Migration Litigation Reform Act 2005, s.477 of the Migration Act applies as if actual notification took place on 1^st December 2005.
The application seeks an extension of time. The Applicant, in his affidavit in support, gives no reason why an extension should be granted. He states that:
“A (sic) applied for judicial review but failed to get justice. I was not represented by any solicitor or barrister…
Previously I reviewed RRT decision but this time I like to review the DIMIA and RRT together. I believe that DIMIA decision had effect on RRT decision.”
The reasons given are not sufficient to show that it would be in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time. Indeed, the application…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read SZBCF 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] FMCA 1096
Decision Date: 24 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In SZBCF v Minister for Immigration, the applicant, a non-citizen, challenged the Minister for Immigration’s decision to cancel their visa. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the Minister's decision was lawful and whether the applicant had a right to be heard. The central issues revolved around the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Minister for the decision to cancel the visa and whether the Minister had considered all relevant information and factors in making this decision.

The court examined the principles governing judicial review of administrative decisions, particularly focusing on the necessity for adequate reasons and the consideration of relevant factors. The applicant argued that the Minister had failed to provide sufficient reasons for the decision and had not taken into account all relevant information. The court assessed the Minister’s decision against these criteria, considering the content and quality of the reasons given and whether they demonstrated a rational and lawful basis for the cancellation of the visa.

In reaching its decision, the court concluded that the reasons provided by the Minister were adequate and that the Minister had appropriately considered all relevant factors. The court found no error in the Minister’s decision-making process, and thus, the application for judicial review was dismissed. Consequently, the court ordered that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs, fixed at $300.00.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application is dismissed.

The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $300.00.

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.