SZCOZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2007] FCA 227

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCOZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 227

SZCOZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
NSD 2251 OF 2006

MOORE J
27 FEBRUARY 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2251 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZCOZ
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 FEBRUARY 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.

2.The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1500.

3.The name of the first respondent be amended to the 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'.

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 2251 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZCOZ
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

27 FEBRUARY 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 20 October 2006: see SZCOZ v Minister for Immigration & Anor (No 2) [2006] FMCA 1606. There has been no appearance from the applicant. The Court notified the applicant letter dated 18 January 2007 sent to his address for service, of the time and date for the hearing. A further letter was sent on 19 January 2007 by the first respondent's solicitors, again notifying the applicant of the time and date of today's hearing. I am satisfied that the appellant was aware of the hearing today. In those circumstances, I propose to dismiss the application with costs. I order that those costs by fixed in the sum of $1500.

  2. I note that this application was made against a background of extensive litigation in the Federal Magistrates Court, this Court and the High Court: see SZCOZ v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 914, SZCOZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 175, SZCOZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCATrans 713, SZCOZ v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2005] FMCA 1907, SZCOZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 422, SZCOZ v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 1332.

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:        2 March 2007

The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing: 27 February 2007
Date of Judgment: 27 February 2007
Details
AGLC
SZCOZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 227
Case
[2007] FCA 227
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SZCOZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship involved an applicant seeking leave to appeal a decision made by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. The applicant, SZCOZ, had their visa application denied, and they sought to appeal this decision in the Federal Court of Australia. The nature of the dispute centred on the grounds for the refusal of the visa application and the subsequent denial of the appeal.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the applicant had standing to appeal and whether the Federal Court had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Additionally, the court needed to consider the criteria for granting leave to appeal under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. The court had to determine if the application met the stringent requirements outlined in the legislation, particularly in light of the nature of the decision being appealed.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the statutory provisions and the precedents set by previous cases. It found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal as set out in section 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. The court concluded that the application did not present a special case warranting an exception to the usual rules governing leave to appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent, now named the 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship', in the sum of $1500.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.

2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1500.

3. The name of the first respondent be amended to the 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'.

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.