SZBTQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2005] FCA 521

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBTQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 521

SZBTQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 426 OF 2005

MADGWICK J
27 APRIL 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 426 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

SZBTQ
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MADGWICK J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 APRIL 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $800.00.

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 426 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

SZBTQ
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MADGWICK J

DATE:

27 APRIL 2005

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MADGWICK J:

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment of Federal Magistrate Driver given on 28 February 2005.  His Honour dismissed an application for judicial review of an adverse decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) on the basis that the initiating process filed by the applicant disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

  2. Before this course was embarked upon, the applicant had been given an opportunity to file an amended application, which he did.  Insofar as he complained of error on the part of the Tribunal, the errors alleged are entirely concerned with factual matters.  As his Honour pointed out:

    ‘… the amended application asserts jurisdictional error but the particulars given are merely a challenge to the merits of the [Tribunal] decision.  No legal error going to the jurisdiction of the [Tribunal] is asserted.  From my reading of the [Tribunal] decision made on 1 September 2003 there was no jurisdictional error.  It would follow that the decision of the [Tribunal] is a privative clause decision and on that basis the amended application is bound to fail.’

  3. Before me, the applicant, although not assisted by an interpreter, spoke excellent English and well understood what I was putting to him.  He was unable to suggest any other complaint other than that the Tribunal had got the facts of his case wrong.  That alone is not sufficient to indicate any jurisdictional error and I would refuse leave to appeal because it seems to me there is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Federal Magistrate fell into error.  Accordingly, the prospects of the appeal, if leave were given, are of insufficient moment to warrant leave being granted. 

  4. The application is dismissed and the applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent, assessed in the sum of $800.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:

Dated:            5  May 2005

Solicitor for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 27 April 2005
Date of Judgment: 27 April 2005
Details
AGLC
SZBTQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 521
Case
[2005] FCA 521
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SZBTQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs was heard by the High Court of Australia. SZBTQ, an individual who had been refused a visa under the Migration Act, sought leave to appeal against the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs was the respondent in the case. The primary issue before the High Court was whether the applicant had standing to appeal against the Federal Court's decision. The applicant argued that the Federal Court had misconstrued the scope of the judicial review of the Minister’s decision, which had resulted in the refusal of their visa.

The High Court considered the legal principles surrounding the standing of an applicant to appeal a decision of the Federal Court. The Court determined that the applicant did not have standing to appeal because the Full Court of the Federal Court had correctly interpreted the scope of the judicial review of the Minister's decision. The Court found that the applicant had not identified any error in the reasoning of the Full Court that would warrant an appeal. The Court also noted that the applicant had not established that the decision of the Full Court had occasioned injustice or resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The High Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $800.00. The Court held that the applicant did not have standing to appeal the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court and that the decision of the Full Court was correct. The Court did not accept the applicant's argument that the Full Court had misconstrued the scope of the judicial review of the Minister's decision. The Court found that the Full Court had correctly interpreted the law and that the applicant had not established any ground for appeal. The Court's decision was based on the principle that an applicant must demonstrate that the decision of the court below was wrong or that there was a miscarriage of justice before an appeal will be allowed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $800.00.

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

MADGWICK J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MADGWICK J

Full text does not contain this section.