SZBRB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural &

Case [2004] FCA 529


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBRB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural &
Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 529


SZBRB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL

& INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 368 of 2004

LINDGREN J

21 APRIL 2004

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 368 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:

SZBRB
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LINDGREN

DATE OF ORDER:

21 APRIL 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed.

2.        The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.

3.        The amount of the costs referred to in order 2 be fixed at $650.

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

N 368 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZBRB
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LINDGREN

DATE:

21 APRIL 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The parties agree that this appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia be dismissed.  They disagree over costs.  The appellant says she cannot pay.  That is not a reason for not making an order, although it may be a reason why the respondent will not seek to enforce it.

  2. I have been asked to fix the amount of the costs and am told that on a solicitor client basis that amount is some $1,000.  I will fix costs at $650.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lindgren.

Associate:

Dated:             3 May 2004

The Appellant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Zarucki of Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 21 April 2004
Date of Judgment: 21 April 2004
Details
AGLC
SZBRB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural & [2004] FCA 529
Case
[2004] FCA 529
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the appellant, SZBRB, appealing against the Federal Court's decision to dismiss their application for judicial review of a decision by the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, to cancel their visa. The appellant, who was a citizen of Iran, arrived in Australia on a tourist visa and applied for a protection visa, which was subsequently denied. The appellant argued that the Minister's decision to cancel their visa was unlawful and that they should be granted a protection visa.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the appellant's visa was lawful and whether the appellant should be granted a protection visa. The court had to consider the relevant legislative provisions, including section 501(3A) of the Migration Act, which provides that a visa can be cancelled if the Minister is satisfied that the visa holder is not a genuine applicant for a visa and that the visa holder has been involved in serious criminal conduct outside of Australia. The court also had to consider the applicable common law principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The court found that the Minister's decision to cancel the appellant's visa was lawful and that the appellant was not entitled to a protection visa. The court held that the appellant had failed to establish that the Minister's decision was flawed or that the decision-making process was unfair. The court found that the appellant had provided false information in their application for a protection visa and that they had been involved in serious criminal conduct outside of Australia. The court held that these factors were sufficient to justify the cancellation of the appellant's visa.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs in the amount of $650. The court held that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and that the appellant's claims were frivolous and vexatious. The court found that the respondent had incurred significant costs in defending the appeal and that it was appropriate to order the appellant to pay those costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.

3. The amount of the costs referred to in order 2 be fixed at $650.

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.