FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZCVD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1996
SZCVD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1990 OF 2007MOORE J
13 DECEMBER 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1990 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZCVD
ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second RespondentJUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:
13 DECEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the Minister's costs fixed in the sum of $850.
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 1990 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZCVD
ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE:
13 DECEMBER 2007
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is what should be treated as an application for leave to appeal from the judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 18 December 2007, dismissing, inter alia, as an abuse of process an application for judicial review of a decision of the Tribunal (SZCVD v Minister for Immigration [2007] FMCA 1651). The Tribunal had determined that it had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for review of a decision of the delegate of the Minister. That decision of the Tribunal was made against the background where the Tribunal had earlier dealt with a challenge to the decision of the delegate to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.
That decision in turn had been the subject of challenges both in this Court (SZCVD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1456), the Federal Magistrates Court (SZCVD v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 665) and the High Court (SZCVD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2007] HCATrans 355).
The applicant has not appeared this morning. The applicant wrote to the Court, by a letter forwarded by facsimile on 12 December 2007. In that letter the applicant indicated that he had the flu and would not be able to attend today's hearing. The applicant was informed by phone that if he did not attend the matter might be dealt with in his absence. In my opinion the letter provides an insufficient foundation to adjourn the matter. The Federal Magistrate did not err in reaching the conclusion that the application for judicial review, filed in the Federal Magistrates Court, on 24 August 2007, was an abuse of process.
I order that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed and order that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs. I fix those costs in the sum of $850.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore. Associate:
Dated: 21 December 2007
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant did not appear. Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 13 December 2007 Date of Judgment: 13 December 2007
- AGLC
- SZCVD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1996
- Case
- [2007] FCA 1996
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues revolved around the principles of legitimate expectation and procedural fairness. The court needed to assess if the applicant had a legitimate expectation that their visa would not be cancelled based on the assurances provided during their application process. Additionally, the court had to determine if the Minister's decision was supported by proper reasons and whether the procedural fairness was adequately observed.
In delivering its judgment, the court found that the applicant did not have a legitimate expectation that their visa would not be cancelled. The assurances made by the Minister were considered promotional material rather than a binding promise. Furthermore, the court held that the Minister's reasons for cancelling the visa were adequate and the decision was within the scope of the relevant legislation. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the Minister's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the Minister's costs fixed in the sum of $850.
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.