SZDRY v Minister for Immigration - [2005] FMCA 155

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDRY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

[2005] FMCA 155

MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection visa – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.91R, 91X, 442B
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B

Applicant VCAT of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 141
WAEJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 161
Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; Ex parteMiah (2001) 206 CLR 57
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601

VAAC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 74
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Ibrahim (2000) 204 CLR 1
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379
VSAI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1602
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Respondents S152/2003 (2004) 78 ALJR 678
Applicant A & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs & Anor (1997) 142 ALR 331
R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Ozone Theatres (Aust.) Pty Ltd (1949) 78 CLR 389

Applicant:

SZDRY

Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No:

SYG1623 of 2004

Delivered on:

24 February 2005

Delivered at:

Sydney

Hearing date:

9 February 2005

Judgment of:

Lloyd-Jones FM

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Mr A Silva of Silva Solicitors

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr J Smith

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

The application is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG1623 of 2004

SZDRY

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &
MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The proceedings

This is an application for a review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 22 June 1998, affirming the decision of the delegate of the respondent (“the delegate”) made on

17 June 1997 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Background

The applicant in these proceedings is not to be identified pursuant to provisions of s.91X of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) and has been given the pseudonym “SZDRY”.
The applicant, who is a citizen of Pakistan, arrived in Australia on

12 July 1996. On 23 January 1997 she lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (“the Department”) under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”). On 17 June 1997 the delegate refused to grant a protection visa and on 7 July 1997 the applicant sought a review of the delegate’s decision.
The applicant was born in February 1973 in Lahore, Pakistan and described herself as a housewife. She obtained her passport on

19 November 1995 and arrived in Australia as a student on 12 July 1996. She stated she…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read SZDRY v Minister for Immigration and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] FMCA 155
Decision Date: 24 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was between SZDRY, an applicant for a visa, and the Minister for Immigration, who was responsible for the decision to refuse the visa. The applicant, SZDRY, sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to refuse a visa, contending that the decision was unlawful and unreasonable. The court had to determine whether the Minister's decision was based on lawful grounds and whether the decision-making process was fair and reasonable.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the Minister's decision to refuse the visa was lawful and whether the decision-making process was procedurally fair. The applicant argued that the Minister failed to consider relevant information, did not adequately explain the reasons for the decision, and acted outside the scope of the relevant legislation. The court needed to examine whether the Minister's decision was based on an error of law, was irrational, or did not take into account relevant considerations.

The court found that the Minister's decision was based on lawful grounds and that the decision-making process was procedurally fair. The court held that the Minister was entitled to rely on the information available at the time of the decision and that the reasons provided were sufficient. The court found no evidence of an error of law or that the decision was irrational. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application.

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

Full text does not contain this section.