FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZBQV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 455
SZBQV, SZBRC, SZBRD AND SZBRE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 2551 OF 2006MOORE J
27 MARCH 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 2551 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZBQV
First ApplicantSZBRC
Second ApplicantSZBRD
Third ApplicantSZBRE
Fourth ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second RespondentJUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:
27 MARCH 2007
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave be refused, if leave be necessary.
2.The appeal otherwise be dismissed.
3.The first 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 2551 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZBQV
First ApplicantSZBRC
Second ApplicantSZBRD
Third ApplicantSZBRE
Fourth 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 (SZBQV v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 1894) dismissing an application seeking judicial review of a decision of the delegate of the Minister of 7 November 2002 refusing the applicant a protection visa. The Federal Magistrate was correct in concluding that she had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. I note that the application to the Federal Magistrates Court was made against a background of considerable litigation in the Federal Magistrates Court (SZBQV v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 366 and SZBQV v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 157), this Court (SZBQV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 499 and SZBQV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1242) and the High Court (SZBQV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCATrans 485 and SZBQV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] HCATrans 638), concerning a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 12 September 2003 affirming the delegate’s decision.
The applicant has sought that the matter be adjourned today. There is, in my view, no prospects of the appeal succeeding in those circumstances. I do not propose to adjourn the proceedings. The better view is probably these proceedings should have been constituted by an application for leave to appeal. If leave be necessary I refuse leave and otherwise, dismiss the appeal and order the first appellant to pay the Minister’s costs.
I fix those costs in the sum of $1000 and order the name of the respondent to read, “The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship”.
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
- SZBQV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 455
- Case
- [2007] FCA 455
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Minister had correctly exercised the discretion afforded by the Migration Act, and whether the decision-making process complied with the requirements of natural justice. Specifically, the applicants argued that the Minister had failed to consider certain evidence pertinent to their applications and had not adequately justified the decisions made. Furthermore, they contended that the process by which their applications were assessed was procedurally unfair.
In dismissing the appeal, the court held that the Minister had appropriately exercised the statutory powers and had considered all relevant material. The court found that the decision-making process was fair and that the applicants' arguments regarding the failure to consider certain evidence were without merit. The court also rejected the contention that the process was procedurally flawed, affirming that all legal standards had been met. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave be refused, if leave be necessary.
2. The appeal otherwise be dismissed.
3. The first 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.