SZBJZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2007] FCA 452


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBJZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 452

SZBJZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 270 OF 2007

MOORE J
27 MARCH 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 270 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZBJZ
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE 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.

2.The applicant pay the first respondent'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

NSD 270 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZBJZ
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

27 MARCH 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate, of 7 February 2007, dismissing as incompetent an application filed in the Federal Magistrates Court on 28 August 2006: see SZBJZ v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 118. The application before the Federal Magistrate was an application for an order to show cause why a remedy should not be granted in respect of the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision dated 21 July 2003 and handed down on 14 August 2003 affirming the decision of the delegate of the first respondent not to grant a protection visa. The Federal Magistrate concluded, correctly, that the application was out of time and did not fall within the provision which permits limited extension of time: see s 477(1) and (2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Accordingly, in my opinion, any appeal would be futile. I refuse leave to appeal and order the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1000.

  2. I also note that the proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court and this Court occur against a background of litigation, in the Federal Magistrates Court, this Court and the High Court, in which the applicant has sought to challenge the Tribunal's decision: see SZBJZ v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 639, SZBJZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1329, SZBJZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCSTrans 397.

I certify that the preceding two (2) 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: Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing: 27 March 2007
Date of Judgment: 27 March 2007
Details
AGLC
SZBJZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 452
Case
[2007] FCA 452
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were SZBJZ, an applicant for a visa, and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. The dispute centred around the legality of the Minister's decision to refuse the applicant's visa application and the subsequent refusal of the Minister's application for leave to appeal that decision. The case was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the Minister's refusal of the applicant's visa application was legally sound and whether the court should grant leave for the Minister to appeal the decision of the primary judge that found the Minister's decision to be unlawful. The court also needed to determine the appropriate costs to be awarded.

The court found that the Minister's decision to refuse the visa application was not legally flawed, as the Minister had acted within the bounds of the Migration Act. The court held that the primary judge had erred in finding that the Minister's decision was unlawful. Consequently, the court refused the Minister's application for leave to appeal and ordered that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs, which were fixed at $1000.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal be refused.

2. The applicant pay the first respondent'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.