SZCFU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2005] FCA 444

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCFU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 444

MIGRATION  - no point of principle

SZCFU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 211 OF 2005

MOORE J
23 MARCH 2005
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 211 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

SZCFU
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 MARCH 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.

3.Costs be 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

NSD 211 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

SZCFU
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

23 MARCH 2005

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 27 January 2004 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 4 November 2003.  The Tribunal had affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to not grant the applicant a protection visa.  The Federal Magistrate dismissed the application for judicial review because the applicant had failed to comply with directions to file an amended application particularising the grounds of review.

  2. The applicant is a national of India and his claims in support of the application for a protection visa were founded on his contention that as a Muslim from Gujarat he was at risk of harm both in that region and more generally in India.  The Tribunal rejected that contention.  It did so in circumstances where the applicant failed to appear at a scheduled hearing before the Tribunal on advice from friends.  Plainly, the task of an applicant to establish jurisdictional error in those circumstances is a difficult one.

  3. In my view it is not apparent that there was an error in the approach adopted by the Federal Magistrate having regard to the terms of the application before him and there is nothing in the draft notice of appeal or the application for leave which would suggest that the applicant has any arguable point to raise in any appeal.

  4. Accordingly, the appropriate order is that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed.  I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1000.

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

Associate:

Dated:            19 April 2005

The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing: 23 March 2005
Date of Judgment: 23 March 2005
Details
AGLC
SZCFU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 444
Case
[2005] FCA 444
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an applicant, SZCFU, and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. The applicant, a non-citizen, sought to appeal a decision made by the Minister concerning their immigration status and potential deportation. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the applicant could proceed with their appeal, given the circumstances and legal principles involved. The court was tasked with assessing the merits of the applicant's appeal and deciding whether the applicant had a valid basis to challenge the Minister's decision.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the granting of leave to appeal. This required a careful examination of the applicant's arguments, the relevant immigration laws, and the decision-making process of the Minister. The court also had to consider whether the applicant had complied with procedural requirements and whether there were any errors in the Minister's decision that warranted judicial review. Furthermore, the court assessed the applicant's prospects of success on appeal, taking into account the evidence and arguments presented.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the applicant had not established a compelling case for the grant of leave to appeal. The court determined that the applicant's arguments lacked merit and did not present a substantial question of law or fact that warranted further judicial consideration. The court held that the Minister's decision was made in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and that there were no procedural errors that would undermine the decision's validity. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs. The court fixed the costs in the sum of $1000, reflecting the applicant's unsuccessful attempt to challenge the Minister's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs.

3. Costs be 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.