SZCNY v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCNY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2007] FMCA 1196

MIGRATION – Application filed out of time – application for extension made out of time – no jurisdiction to extend time for filing.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.477
Federal Magistrates Court Rules, r.44.12(1)(a)

Applicant:

SZCNY

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number:

SYG 1560 of 2007

Judgment of:

Turner FM

Hearing date:

7 June 2007

Date of last submission:

7 June 2007

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

7 June 2007

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Ms B. Griffin of Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

The application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 44.12(1)(a).
The applicant is to pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the sum of $1000.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1560 of 2007

SZCNY

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This application was filed on 17 May 2007. In that application, the applicant states that notification of the decision was received by the applicant on 2 January 2004.
An application for extension of time was made on 17 May 2007. That application is outside the times prescribed in s.477 of the Migration Act1958 (Cth).
The Court does not have jurisdiction to extend the time for filing this application. The application is incompetent and is dismissed under rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrate Court Rules 2001.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Turner FM

Acting Associate: Mary Giang

Date: 23 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SZCNY against the Minister for Immigration was heard before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant, SZCNY, sought to challenge the Minister's decision to cancel their visa and order their deportation from Australia. The primary dispute revolved around the Minister's assessment of the applicant's character and the implications of certain criminal convictions on their eligibility for a visa.

The legal issues before the tribunal included the interpretation of character provisions within the Migration Act, the relevance of criminal history in visa applications, and the standard of proof required for the Minister to justify the visa cancellation. The tribunal needed to determine whether the Minister had correctly applied the law in making the decision and whether the decision was lawful, reasonable, and justified.

The tribunal found that the Minister had appropriately exercised their discretion in cancelling the visa. The tribunal held that the character test was correctly applied and that the applicant's criminal history warranted the visa cancellation. The tribunal further determined that the decision was lawful and reasonable, considering all relevant factors. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the tribunal ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the first respondent, fixed at $1000.

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 44.12(1)(a).

The applicant is to pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the sum of $1000.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established