SZDQZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2007] FCA 457


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDQZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 457

SZDQZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 234 OF 2007

MOORE J
27 MARCH 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 234 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZDQZ
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 MARCH 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for an adjournment be refused.

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

3.The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1000.

4.The name of the first respondent be amended to "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 234 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZDQZ
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

27 MARCH 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal filed on 15 February 2007 seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 24 January 2007: see SZDQZ v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 86. The Federal Magistrate dismissed as incompetent an application to show cause why a remedy should not be granted in respect of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 18 November 2002, in which the Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the first respondent not to grant a protection visa. The Federal Magistrate dismissed the application on the basis that the application was filed out of time and also outside the time in which that Court has a discretion to extend time: see s 477(1) and (2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

  2. The applicant has not appeared today. The applicant has written to the Court by letter dated 22 March 2007. In that letter he says that he received a letter from the Court notifying him of the hearing "at a very late juncture" and, in effect, did not have time to prepare for or attend today’s hearing. In other circumstances, it may have been appropriate to adjourn the matter. However, this application for leave to appeal is against a judgment dismissing as incompetent proceedings commenced in the Federal Magistrates Court against a decision of the Tribunal dismissing an application for review. It appears to me that the Federal Magistrate was correct in dismissing as incompetent the application to the Federal Magistrates Court. Accordingly, to adjourn the proceedings would be an act of futility. In the circumstances, I propose to refuse the adjournment and dismiss the application for non-appearance pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). If I am mistaken about the lack of substance in the applicant’s application then the applicant can apply for the order I have just made to be set aside. I order that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs 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:        2 April 2007

The Applicant did not appear.

Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing: 27 March 2007
Date of Judgment: 27 March 2007
Details
AGLC
SZDQZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 457
Case
[2007] FCA 457
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, SZDQZ, sought an adjournment and leave to appeal against a decision of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, which had refused their application for a protection visa. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the court should grant an adjournment and allow the applicant to appeal against the Minister's decision. Additionally, the court had to consider the costs associated with the application for leave to appeal.

The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any sufficient grounds to warrant an adjournment or an appeal. It was noted that the applicant had not presented any new evidence or arguments that could potentially alter the outcome of the original decision. The court emphasised that leave to appeal is not granted as a matter of right and is subject to the court's discretion. The court found that the application for leave to appeal was without merit and did not meet the criteria set out in the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent, now amended to "Minister for Immigration and Citizenship".

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for an adjournment be refused.

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

3. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1000.

4. The name of the first respondent be amended to "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.