FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZDYE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2005] FCA 487
SZDYE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND
INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 165 of 2005
WHITLAM J
11 APRIL 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 165 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
SZDYE
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER:
11 APRIL 2005
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave to appeal is refused with costs.
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 165 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
SZDYE
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
WHITLAM J
DATE:
11 APRIL 2005
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for leave to appeal from an order of the Federal Magistrates Court made on 1 February 2005 dismissing a proceeding pursuant to r 13.03 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules. The initiating process in that Court was filed on 28 June 2004 and fixed for directions on 1 October 2004. It was an application in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal refusing to grant a protection visa to the applicant. No proper grounds were stated in the application. At the direction hearing on 1 October 2004, orders were made by consent directing the applicant to file an amended application by 12 November 2004 and fixing the matter for hearing on 22 June 2005.
On 22 November 2004, the proceeding was re-listed on the application of the respondent on account of the applicant's failure to comply with the direction to file an amended application. A motion for summary dismissal was heard on 1 February 2005 and the Federal Magistrate dismissed the application with ex tempore reasons. The certified copy of those reasons was made available on 3 March 2005.
The draft notice of appeal states no proper grounds of appeal. The applicant has the misfortune to be acting in person without the assistance of a lawyer. He has not directed my attention to any statement in the reasons of the Federal Magistrate to indicate that any possible grounds of appeal could succeed. Indeed, and somewhat distressingly, the applicant again seeks more time to obtain documents from China. Such a statement only reinforces the decision made by the Federal Magistrate.
The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Whitlam j.
Associate:
Dated: 11 April 2005
The applicant appeared in person.
Mr A J Carter, solicitor, from Sparke Helmore appeared for the respondent.
Date of hearing:
11 April 2005
Date of Judgment:
11 April 2005
- AGLC
- SZDYE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 487
- Case
- [2005] FCA 487
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the primary decision-maker had erred in law or fact, and whether the decision was otherwise unjust or unreasonable. Specifically, the court needed to determine if there were any procedural flaws in the handling of the visa application, if the decision-maker correctly applied the relevant laws, and whether the evidence presented by the applicant was appropriately considered. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence and whether it was open to the decision-maker to arrive at the conclusion reached.
The court held that there were no errors in the decision-making process. It found that the decision-maker had correctly applied the relevant legislative provisions and had appropriately considered the evidence provided. The court emphasised that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and that it was open to the decision-maker to conclude that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa. The court also noted that the procedural fairness was maintained throughout the process. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the refusal of the visa was upheld.
Consequently, the Federal Court refused leave to appeal, and ordered that the costs of the appeal be paid by the applicant.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave to appeal is refused with costs.
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: WHITLAM J
Full text does not contain this section.