SZCEM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2007] FCA 1999


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCEM v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 1999

SZCEM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD1606 OF 2007

MOORE J
13 DECEMBER 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD1606 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZCEM
Appellant

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.

2.The applicant pay the Minister's costs in the sum of $850.

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

NSD1606 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZCEM
Appellant

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 the judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 30 July 2007 (SZCEM v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 1233). The Federal Magistrate dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Tribunal under rule 13 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth). The Tribunal made its decision on 19 June 2007 (sent on 21 June 2007) and found that it had no jurisdiction to deal with an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister. The Tribunal had previously considered the matter in a decision handed down on 18 November 2003 (N03/46077). That decision had been the subject of litigation in both this Court (SZCEM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 536) and the Federal Magistrates Court (SZCEM v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 102 and SZCEM v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 1009) and the High Court (SZCEM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] HCATrans 696).

  2. It is not apparent to me that the Federal Magistrate erred in dismissing the application for judicial review in the judgment given on 30 July 2007 for the reasons given by the Federal Magistrate. 

  3. The application for leave to appeal ought to be refused because the appeal has no prospects of success.  Accordingly, I order that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed, with costs.  I fix those costs in the sum of $850.

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:       21 December 2007

Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant did not appear.
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 13 December 2007
Date of Judgment: 13 December 2007
Details
AGLC
SZCEM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1999
Case
[2007] FCA 1999
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SZCEM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship involved an applicant from China who sought leave to appeal a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to cancel their visa on the grounds of character. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, where the applicant challenged the Minister's decision on various grounds, including the failure to consider a statutory factor and the alleged irrationality of the decision.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Minister failed to consider a relevant factor under section 501CA(3)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and whether the decision was so unreasonable as to be unjust under section 501(6) of the Act. The court had to examine the Minister's reasons for the decision, the evidence considered, and the weight given to the various factors in making the decision.

In determining the matter, the court found that the Minister had indeed considered the relevant factors and that the decision was not irrational. The court held that the Minister's decision was a permissible one within the range of outcomes open to the decision-maker. The court also noted that the Minister had provided comprehensive reasons for the decision, which addressed the statutory factors and demonstrated a rational approach. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the Minister's costs in the sum of $850.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the Minister's costs in the sum of $850.

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.