FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZCLW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1019
SZCLW, SZCLV AND SZCLX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 837 OF 2007MOORE J
4 JULY 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 837 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZCLW
First ApplicantSZCLV
Second ApplicantSZCLX
Third ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:
4 JULY 2007
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2.The first and second applicants pay the Minister's costs.
3.Costs in this matter 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 837 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZCLW
First ApplicantSZCLV
Second ApplicantSZCLX
Third ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE:
4 JULY 2007
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 23 April 2007 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 13 February 2007: see SZCLW & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 660. The appellant sought to challenge in the Tribunal a decision of a delegate of the Minister of 26 June 2002 refusing to grant the applicants protection visas. That delegate’s decision had earlier been the subject of review by the Tribunal which affirmed the delegate’s decision on 17 December 2003. The Tribunal, on the second occasion, correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to entertain a second application for review of the delegate’s decision.
The Federal Magistrate did not err in dismissing the application for judicial review of that second Tribunal decision. Accordingly, were leave given any appeal would be, in my opinion, doomed to fail. Accordingly, I order that leave be refused and that the applicants pay the Minister’s costs. I note that prior to the application to the Federal Magistrates Court filed earlier this year, the applicants unsuccessfully sought to challenge the first Tribunal's decision in the Federal Magistrates Court, an appeal from which was struck out as an abuse of process in this Court: see SZCLV & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2004] FMCA 553 and SZCLV & Ors v Minnister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs & Anor [2004] FCA 1795.
I order that the first and second applicants pay the Minister's costs, fixed in the sum of $1000.
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: 10 July 2007
The Applicants appeared in person Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 4 July 2007 Date of Judgment: 4 July 2007
- AGLC
- SZCLW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1019
- Case
- [2007] FCA 1019
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues revolved around the validity and reasonableness of the Minister's decision. The applicants argued that the decision was made on invalid grounds and that the Minister had failed to properly consider certain information. They also contended that the decision was unjust and discriminatory. The Minister, on the other hand, maintained that the decision was lawful, well-founded, and made in accordance with the applicable legal framework.
The court found that the Minister's decision was not based on invalid grounds and was made within the statutory powers provided. The court determined that the Minister had properly considered all relevant information and exercised the discretion conferred by the legislation appropriately. The applicants' claims of unfairness and discrimination were also dismissed as the court found no evidence to support these allegations. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was rejected, and the applicants were ordered to pay the Minister's costs. Additionally, the court set the total costs of the case at $1000.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2. The first and second applicants pay the Minister's costs.
3. Costs in this matter 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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: MOORE J
Full text does not contain this section.