SZBPY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZBPY v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2006] FCA 235

SZBPY V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1408 OF 2005
JACOBSON J
SYDNEY
9 MARCH 2006

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD1408 OF 2005

On appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Raphael

BETWEEN:

SZBPY
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 March 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed pursuant to section 25(2B)(bb(ii) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth).

The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD1408 OF 2005

On appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Raphael

BETWEEN:

SZBPY
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE:

9 March 2006

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an appeal from the judgment of Federal Magistrate Raphael dated 28 July 2005. When the matter was called on for hearing, there was no appearance by the appellant.
The solicitor for the Minister asked me to dismiss the appeal for want of appearance pursuant to section 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) (“the Act”).
I am satisfied that the applicant was notified of today's hearing.
On 23 November 2005, my associate wrote to the appellant at the address for service given on the application as well as an alternative address contained in the file. My associate confirmed the hearing date when she wrote to the appellant on 20 February 2006 to advise that the Chief Justice had determined, pursuant to section 25(1A) of the Act that the appeal in the above matter should be heard by a single judge.
Accordingly, as I have said, I am satisfied that the appellant was notified of and ought to have been aware of today's hearing.
It is hardly surprising that the appellant has failed to attend. In an affidavit sworn today, the solicitor for the Minister has put before me evidence which establishes that the appellant departed from Australia on 2 November 2005.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that I have power to make an order dismissing the appeal and that I propose to do so. The orders that I would make are that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson.
Associate:
Dated: 14 March 2006

Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant failed to appear

Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron

Date of Hearing: 9 March 2006

Date of Judgment: 9 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SZBPY, the appellant, contested the decision of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, the respondent, to cancel their visa. The dispute was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant, a non-citizen, sought to overturn the Minister's decision to cancel their visa on the basis of character grounds, alleging that the decision was unreasonable, and that the Minister had failed to consider relevant material. The respondent defended the decision, asserting that the appellant's visa cancellation was justified on the grounds of public policy and national security.

The central legal issues revolved around the scope of judicial review in decisions made by the Minister concerning visa cancellations under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Specifically, the court examined whether the Minister's decision was unreasonable, and if relevant material had been omitted from consideration. The court also considered the standard of review applicable to the Minister's decision, distinguishing between questions of law and questions of policy.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Minister's decision was not unreasonable. The court found that the Minister had adequately considered the relevant material and that the decision was within the range of responses open to the Minister under the Migration Act. The court emphasised that the Minister's decision to cancel a visa on character grounds was a matter of policy and was not subject to judicial review unless there was an error in the application of the law or a failure to consider relevant material. As such, the court determined that the appeal was without merit. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed pursuant to section 25(2B)(bb(ii) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth).

2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD1408 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	SZBPY APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	9 March 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	JACOBSON J
DATE:	9 March 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

Counsel for the Appellant:	The appellant failed to appear
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	9 March 2006
Date of Judgment:	9 March 2006