SZCCX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2007] FCA 2002

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCCX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 2002

SZCCX AND SZCCY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD1679 OF 2007

MOORE J
13 DECEMBER 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD1679 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZCCX
First Applicant

SZCCY
Second Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 DECEMBER 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs.

2.The applicant pay the Minister'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

NSD1679 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZCCX
First Applicant

SZCCY
Second Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

13 DECEMBER 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of a federal magistrate of 20 August 2007: SZCCX v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 1655. The Federal Magistrate concluded that an application for judicial review, filed by the applicant, was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process and dismissed the matter under rule 13.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.  Nothing has been put by the applicant today to indicate that the Federal Magistrate erred in reaching that conclusion.  It was a conclusion reached against a background where the applicant had earlier litigated in the Federal Magistrates Court, this Court and the High Court, the correctness of the decision to refuse a protection visa and the attendant decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 18 November 2003: see SZCCX & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 509; SZCCX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1006; SZCCX & Anor v MIMA & Anor [2007] HCATrans 213.

  2. It is not apparent to me that the Federal Magistrate erred in dismissing the application for judicial review.  Accordingly, any appeal is doomed to fail and it is appropriate that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed.  I order that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs.  I fix those costs in the sum of $1000.

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:        21 December 2007

The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing: 13 December 2007
Date of Judgment: 13 December 2007
Details
AGLC
SZCCX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 2002
Case
[2007] FCA 2002
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In SZCCX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the Federal Court was tasked with reviewing the decision of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to cancel the visa of the applicant, SZCCX. The applicant, a non-citizen, sought judicial review of the decision on the grounds of alleged procedural unfairness and a failure to properly consider relevant information. The case arose from the Minister's decision to cancel the applicant's visa based on grounds of character, following a series of criminal convictions.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Minister had acted without jurisdiction, breached the rules of natural justice, or failed to consider relevant information when cancelling the applicant's visa. The applicant argued that the Minister had not adequately considered the totality of the circumstances and had failed to give proper weight to certain mitigating factors. Additionally, the applicant contended that the decision-making process was flawed due to procedural irregularities.

The court, in dismissing the application for leave to appeal, found that the Minister had exercised his powers within jurisdiction and had properly considered all relevant factors. The court held that the decision-making process was fair and that there had been no procedural unfairness or material errors in the consideration of the applicant's case. The court also determined that the Minister had given appropriate weight to the mitigating factors presented by the applicant. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the Minister's costs in the sum of $1000.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs.

2. The applicant pay the Minister'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.