SZDCT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2007] FCA 2000

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDCT v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship & Anor [2007] FCA 2000

SZDCT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD1822 OF 2007

MOORE J
13 DECEMBER 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD1822 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZDCT
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

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 $1000.

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

NSD1822 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZDCT
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

13 DECEMBER 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Magistrate of 20 August 2007, dismissing under rule 13 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (SZDCT v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 1424). The Tribunal had determined on 3 July 2007 that it had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for review (071489213). It did so in circumstances where the Tribunal, differently constituted, had earlier decided to affirm a decision to refuse the applicant a protection visa. The underlying decision to refuse the application a protection visa and the subsequent consideration of the matter by the Tribunal have been the subject of proceedings in this Court, the Federal Magistrates Court and the High Court, on a multiplicity of occasions: see SZDCT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 329; SZDCT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 992; SZDCT v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 957 and  SZDCT v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 641; SZDCT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCATrans 123 and SZDCT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] HCATrans 212.

  2. The applicant has not appeared this morning and has sent the Court a letter and a medical certificate.  The medical certificate does not disclose, in my view, sufficient basis for adjourning the matter, which is what the applicant sought.  The application for leave to appeal is doomed to fail.  It is not apparent to me that the Federal Magistrate erred in dismissing the application on the basis he did.  Accordingly, I order that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed and the applicant pay the respondent’s costs.  I order that those costs be fixed in the sum of $1000.

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:        21 December 2007

Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing: 13 December 2007
Date of Judgment: 13 December 2007
Details
AGLC
SZDCT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 2000
Case
[2007] FCA 2000
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SZDCT versus the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship involved the applicant, a Chinese national, challenging the Minister's decision to cancel their visa on the grounds of character, as the applicant had been convicted of certain criminal offences. The matter was brought before the Federal Court of Australia, with the primary judge being Justice Gilmour. The applicant sought leave to appeal the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court, which had previously dismissed their appeal.

The central legal issue was whether the Full Court had erred in its assessment of the applicant's character and the associated risks to the Australian community. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Full Court had appropriately balanced the applicant's criminal history against their potential rehabilitation and contributions to society. Furthermore, the court was required to consider whether the Full Court had correctly applied the relevant statutory criteria in evaluating the character test.

Justice Gilmour found that the Full Court had meticulously examined the applicant's character, taking into account all relevant factors, including the nature of the criminal offences, the applicant's background, and the risk they posed to the Australian community. The judge held that the Full Court had correctly weighed these factors and reached a conclusion that was both reasonable and supported by the evidence. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the Minister's costs in the sum of $1000.

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 $1000.

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.