FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZDJC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 419
MIGRATION – no point of principle
SZDJC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 1698 OF 2004MOORE J
23 MARCH 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1698 OF 2004
BETWEEN:
SZDJC
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:
23 MARCH 2005
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondent's costs.
3.Costs be fixed in the sum of $800.
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 1698 OF 2004
BETWEEN:
SZDJC
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE:
23 MARCH 2005
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate given on 4 November 2004 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The Federal Magistrate dismissed the application for default of appearance.
The applicant, a Pakistani national, first arrived in Australia on 11 August 1998 under a student (class TU) visa issued offshore and valid to 20 December 1999, subsequently extended to 15 March 2001. On 16 April 2000 the applicant left Australia and returned on 25 April 2000. He applied for a protection visa on 14 August 2000. A delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the Minister") refused to grant the visa on 22 November 2000. An application for review of the Tribunal's decision was received by the Tribunal on 28 December 2000. On 29 July 2003, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the visa.
The applicant filed an application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision with the Federal Magistrate on 19 April 2004. He failed to attend at the first hearing date of 3 August 2004. The matter was adjourned to 17 August 2004 at which time the applicant consented to an order requiring him to file and serve an amended application giving full particulars of each ground of review relied upon by 12 October 2004. The matter was listed for hearing on 4 November 2004. The applicant did not appear. The Federal Magistrate made orders pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Rules ("the rules") dismissing the application. The Federal Magistrate also ordered that the respondent's solicitors write to the applicant bringing to his attention Rule 16.05 of the rules, and in particular Rule 16.05(2)(a) which relates to judgments or orders made in the absence of a party.
The application in this Court was filed on 18 November 2004. The time and date of the hearing was to be advised by the Registry. The Registry wrote to the applicant at the address for service advising the applicant of the hearing today. In addition, the Minister has served recently at that address for service, submissions in the matter which would, at the very least, have alerted the applicant to the fact that the hearing of the matter was imminent. The matter has been called, there is no appearance. In those circumstances I propose to dismiss the application and order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $800.
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: 14 April 2005
The Applicant did not appear. Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 23 March 2005 Date of Judgment: 23 March 2005
- AGLC
- SZDJC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 419
- Case
- [2005] FCA 419
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister had erred in law or failed to consider relevant material when making the decision to refuse the visa application. The court was required to determine whether the Minister's decision was legally sound and whether the applicant had been afforded procedural fairness. The court also needed to consider whether the Minister had failed to take into account relevant material that should have been considered in the decision-making process.
In reaching its decision, the court considered the applicable legislative framework and the Minister's decision-making process. The court found that the Minister had not erred in law and had properly considered all relevant material. The court concluded that the Minister's decision was legally sound and that the applicant had been afforded procedural fairness. The court also found that the Minister had not failed to take into account relevant material in the decision-making process. As such, the application for judicial review was dismissed.
The court ordered that the application be dismissed, that the applicant pay the respondent's costs, and that costs be fixed in the sum of $800. The court did not make any further orders.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs.
3. Costs be fixed in the sum of $800.
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.