SZDXC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2007] FCA 214


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDXC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 214

SZDXC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 2425 OF 2006

MOORE J
27 FEBRUARY 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2425 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZDXC
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 FEBRUARY 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

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

2.The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $750.

3.The name of the first respondent be amended to the '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 2425 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZDXC
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

27 FEBRUARY 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 20 November 2006 dismissing an application for a judicial review of a decision of a delegate of the first respondent: see SZDXC v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 1774. The matter has been called and there has been no appearance by the applicant. The applicant was notified at his address for service by letter dated 18 January 2007 that the matter was listed before me today. In addition a letter was sent to the applicant by express post on 23 February 2007 from the solicitors appearing for the first respondent informing him that the matter had been listed today.

  2. I am satisfied that the applicant would have been aware that the matter was listed for hearing today. I propose to dismiss the application having regard to his non-appearance, pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). I should add, however, that it appears to me that the decision of the Federal Magistrate in dismissing the application was correct given that what was sought to be reviewed was a decision of a delegate of the first respondent. I order that the application be dismissed and the applicant pay the respondent’s costs and I fix those costs in the sum of $750.

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 March 2007

Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 27 February 2007
Date of Judgment: 27 February 2007
Details
AGLC
SZDXC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 214
Case
[2007] FCA 214
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, SZDXC, sought leave to appeal a decision made by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, concerning their application for a visa. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the applicant could appeal the decision and, if so, granting leave to do so. The court was also required to decide on the matter of costs associated with the application for leave to appeal.

The court examined whether the application for leave to appeal met the criteria set out in the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. Specifically, the court had to consider if the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and whether it was in the interests of justice to grant leave. Additionally, the court was required to assess if the applicant had acted promptly in lodging the application and whether there were any other factors that should be considered under the Act. After careful deliberation, the court found that the application for leave to appeal did not satisfy the necessary criteria, and therefore, leave to appeal was denied.

In reaching its decision, the court noted that the applicant had not demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success on the merits of the appeal. Furthermore, the court found that it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal. Additionally, the court determined that the applicant had not acted promptly in lodging the application, which was a relevant factor under the Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the first respondent, which were fixed in the sum of $750. The court also amended the name of the first respondent to 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'.

Orders

Orders of the court

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

2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $750.

3. The name of the first respondent be amended to the '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.