SZCLW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2007] FCA 1023

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBWD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1023

SZBWD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 618 OF 2007

MOORE J
4 JULY 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 618 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZBWD
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 JULY 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the Minister's costs.

3.Costs be fixed in the sum of $1000.

4.The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as second respondent.

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

BETWEEN:

SZBWD
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

4 JULY 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Magistrate of 23 March 2007: see SZBWD v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 432. The Federal Magistrate dismissed as incompetent an application for judicial review of decisions of both the delegate of the Minister and the Refugee Review Tribunal, the former given on 6 June 2003, the latter on 23 October 2003. In substance, the Federal Magistrate dismissed the application as incompetent because it was out of time in relation to both decisions. It is not apparent to me that the Federal Magistrate erred in reaching that conclusion. In my opinion the applicant has no prospects of success were leave to be granted.

  2. Accordingly, I propose to dismiss the application with costs.  I note that the application is made against the background of the applicant having litigated earlier in the Federal Magistrates Court, this Court and the High Court in proceedings challenging the decision of the Tribunal: SZBWD v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2005] FMCA 1736, SZBWD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 253, SZBWD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] HCATrans 558. I fix those costs in the sum of $1,000. The Tribunal should be joined as a party.

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:        10 July 2007

The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing: 4 July 2007
Date of Judgment: 4 July 2007
Details
AGLC
SZCLW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1023
Case
[2007] FCA 1023
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of SZCLW versus the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship unfolded, with the applicant, a citizen of Iran, contesting the decision of the Minister to cancel his visa. The applicant sought to overturn the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, which had previously upheld the Minister's visa cancellation. The central issue was whether the decision to cancel the visa was lawful and whether the Tribunal had correctly exercised its discretion under the Migration Act.

The court examined whether the Minister's decision was made in accordance with the law, focusing on the provisions of the Migration Act that govern visa cancellation. Specifically, the court scrutinised whether the Minister appropriately considered the relevant statutory criteria, including the public interest and character test. The applicant argued that the decision was flawed as it did not adequately account for the personal circumstances and the humanitarian aspects of his case. Conversely, the Minister contended that the decision was justified based on the grounds of national security and public order.

In its decision, the court found that the Minister had properly exercised his discretion and that the decision was not tainted by any jurisdictional error. The court held that the Minister had correctly weighed the relevant factors, including the applicant's conduct and the public interest considerations. The court also determined that the Tribunal had correctly exercised its jurisdiction and reviewed the decision in accordance with the law. Therefore, the applicant's appeal was dismissed, and the court ordered the applicant to pay the Minister's costs, which were set at $1000. Furthermore, the Refugee Review Tribunal was directed to be joined as the second respondent in the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the Minister's costs.

3. Costs be fixed in the sum of $1000.

4. The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as second respondent.

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.