SZCQH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2005] FCA 1653

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCQH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1653

SZCQH V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 1926 of 2005

JACOBSON J
15 NOVEMBER 2005
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1926 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

SZCQH
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 NOVEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Application for leave to appeal be dismissed, pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth).

2.The applicant pay the respondents costs.

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

N 1926 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

SZCQH
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE:

15 NOVEMBER 2005

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of Federal Magistrate Raphael given on 26 August 2005. 

  2. When the matter was called on for hearing this afternoon, there was no appearance by the applicant.  I stood the matter down until 2.25 pm in case the applicant was unavoidably detained, however, it is now nearly 2.30 pm and there is still no appearance. 

  3. The solicitor for the Minister asks me to dismiss the application for want of appearance. 

  4. I am satisfied that the applicant was notified of today's hearing.  The application for leave to appeal was stamped by the Registry with a stamp stating that the date and time would be advised by the Registry.  On 3 November 2005 the legal support officer of the court wrote to the applicant at the address for service given on the application notifying him that the application had been listed for hearing before me today at 2.15 pm. 

  5. Accordingly, as I have said I am satisfied that the applicant was notified of and ought to have been aware of the hearing date.  I am also satisfied that I have power to make the order sought by the respondent. 

  6. It seems to me that the power is to be found in either section 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) or order 35A rule 2(1)(f) and rule 3(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules. 

  7. I dealt with a similar application in SZDJA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1499. I note that a similar approach had been taken by various other judges of this court, see for example, SZATD vMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1559 per Whitlam J.

  8. Accordingly, the order I will make is that the application be dismissed pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) with costs.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson.

Associate:

Dated:             18 November 2005

Counsel for the Applicant:
No appearance
Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 15 November 2005
Date of Judgment: 15 November 2005
Details
AGLC
SZCQH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1653
Case
[2005] FCA 1653
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the applicant, SZCQH, sought leave to appeal a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs that cancelled their visa. The primary dispute centred on the Minister's authority to cancel the visa and the procedural fairness afforded to the applicant during the decision-making process.

The court had to determine whether the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was lawful and whether the applicant was given sufficient opportunity to respond to the allegations against them. This involved examining the relevant sections of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the principles of natural justice. The court had to assess if the decision-making process complied with the legal standards expected under Australian administrative law.

The court found that the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was within their statutory authority and that the process followed complied with the principles of natural justice. The applicant was given adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations and present their case. The court held that there were no grounds for allowing the appeal as the decision was not unlawful or procedurally unfair. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal be dismissed, pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth).

2. The applicant pay the respondents costs.

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

JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.