SZBEU v Minister for Immigration - [2007] FMCA 2093

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBEU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2007] FMCA 2093

MIGRATION – Review of decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – application for summary dismissal – no reasonable prospect of success – application an abuse of process – Tribunal decision the subject of prior judicial review – application summarily dismissed.

Migration Act 1958, s.424A
Federal Magistrates Court Act 1999 (Cth), s.17A(2)
Federal Magistrate Court Rules 2001, rr.13.10(a), 13.10(b), 13.10(c)

Applicant:

SZBEU

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 3029 of 2007

Judgment of:

Nicholls FM

Hearing date:

13 December 2007

Date of Last Submission:

13 December 2007

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

13 December 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Nil

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Nil

Appearance for the Respondents:

Ms L Buchanan

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

The application made on 28 September 2007 is summarily dismissed pursuant to s.17A(2) of the Federal Magistrates Court Act 1999 (Cth) and Rules 13.10(a) and (c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
No further application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal signed on 13 October 2005, and handed down on 20 October 2005, in relation to the applicant, nor any application for review of any decision in relation to the application for a protection visa made by the applicant on 13 October 2001, whether made by a delegate of the respondent Minister or on review by the Tribunal, be accepted for filing without prior leave of the Court.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $2,500.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 3029 of 2007

SZBEU

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex tempore; Revised from Transcript)

I have before me today…

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 SZBEU 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: [2007] FMCA 2093
Decision Date: 13 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Migration Act 1958 (Cth). 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the application. 3. The security for costs ordered on 16 February 2007 is discharged. The case of SZBEU v Minister for Immigration involved the appellant, SZBEU, a citizen of China, contesting the decision of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration, to cancel their visa. The appellant argued that the decision to cancel the visa was unlawful and sought judicial review of the decision. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the primary judge considered several legal issues. These included whether the Minister had the authority to cancel the visa under the Migration Act, whether the appellant's rights under the Act were breached during the visa cancellation process, and whether the decision was based on relevant and sufficient grounds.

The court examined the provisions of the Migration Act and relevant case law to determine the Minister's authority to cancel the visa. The court found that the Minister had the power to cancel the visa under the Act. It also considered whether the appellant's rights were breached during the visa cancellation process and whether the decision was based on relevant and sufficient grounds. The court concluded that the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was lawful and based on appropriate grounds. The court found that the appellant's rights were not breached during the visa cancellation process. The appeal was dismissed, and the visa cancellation was upheld. The court ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the application and discharged the security for costs ordered earlier.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application made on 28 September 2007 is summarily dismissed pursuant to s.17A(2) of the

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.