SZDWJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2007] FCA 1024

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDWJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1024

SZDWJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 995 OF 2007

MOORE J
4 JULY 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 995 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZDWJ
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 JULY 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the Minister's costs fixed in the sum of $1100.

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

BETWEEN:

SZDWJ
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

4 JULY 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 7 May 2007 refusing to set aside an order of the Federal Magistrate of 19 February 2007: see SZDWJ v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 752. On 19 February 2007, the Federal Magistrate had dismissed with costs an application to show cause in relation to a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 28 April 2004 (handed down on 21 April 2004) and restrained the applicant from filing any application for a review of the decision of the Tribunal: see SZBWJ v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 230. The applicant had previously challenged the Tribunal's decision in the Federal Magistrates Court, this Court and the High Court: see SZDWJ v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 103, SZDWJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 688, SZDWJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCATrans 702.

  2. The applicant did not appear in the Federal Magistrates Court on 7 May 2007 and has not appeared today.  The matter has been called.  I have been asked to dismiss the matter under O 35A r 2(1)(f) of the Federal Court Rules.  The applicant was notified of today’s hearing by letter dated 19 June 2007 sent to his address for service.  On 21 June 2007 the solicitors appearing for the Minister also advised the applicant at his address for service of the orders made by the Registrar on 19 June 2007.  Those orders included that the time at which the matter would be heard today.  Additionally, the solicitor's letter itself noted the date and time of the listing.  In the circumstances I am prepared to dismiss the application as sought by the Minister and I order that the application be dismissed and the applicant pay the Minister’s costs.  I fix those costs in the sum of $1,100.

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:        10 July 2007

Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 4 July 2007
Date of Judgment: 4 July 2007
Details
AGLC
SZDWJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1024
Case
[2007] FCA 1024
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court heard an application by SZDWJ, an applicant for a protection visa, against the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. The dispute involved the Minister's decision to refuse the applicant's visa application on the basis that he was not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. The applicant contested this decision, arguing that he had a well-founded fear of persecution based on his political opinion if returned to his home country. The Court was tasked with determining whether the Minister's decision was lawful and whether the applicant qualified for a protection visa.

The legal issues before the Court included whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution, and whether the Minister's decision was based on a reasonable and lawful assessment of the applicant's claims. The Court examined the applicant's evidence, the Minister's decision-making process, and the applicable legal standards under the Refugees Convention and Australian immigration law. The Court also considered whether there were any errors in the Minister's assessment of the evidence and whether the applicant's claims were credible.

The Court found that the Minister's decision was based on a reasonable assessment of the applicant's claims and that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. The Court determined that the applicant's claims were not credible and that there was no error in the Minister's decision-making process. The Court held that the applicant had not satisfied the necessary criteria for a protection visa under the Refugees Convention and Australian law. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and ordered that the applicant pay the Minister's costs fixed in the sum of $1100.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the Minister's costs fixed in the sum of $1100.

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.