SZEBG v Minister for Immigration - [2005] FMCA 9

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEBG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

[2005] FMCA 9

MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of protection (Class XA) visas – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.424
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia [2003] HCA 2
Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicants S134/2002 [2003] HCA 1
Craig v South Australia (1994) 184 CLR 163

Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26
R v Home Department State Secretary; Ex parte Sivakumaran [1998] AC 959
Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Prathapan (1998) 156 ALR 672
Appellant S395/2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2003) 203 ALR 112
SFKB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 142
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510
NAHI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 10

Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 184

Applicant:

SZEBG

Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No:

SYG2359 of 2004

Delivered on:

11 February 2005

Delivered at:

Sydney

Hearing date:

10 November 2004

Judgment of:

Lloyd-Jones FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr R B Wilson

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr T Reilly

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG2359 of 2004

SZEBG

Applicants

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &
MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The proceedings

This is an application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 22 June 2004 and handed down on 30 June 2004, affirming the decision of the delegate of the respondent (“the delegate”) made on 11 February 2003 to refuse to grant the applicants protection (Class XA) visas.

Background

The applicants in these proceedings are not to be identified pursuant to the provisions of s.91X of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) and the applicant husband has been given a pseudonym “SZEBG”.
The applicants are husband, wife, son and daughter. They are citizens of Egypt who arrived in Australia 3 November 2002. On 20 December 2002 they lodged an application for protection (Class XA) visas with the Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (“the Department”) under Act. On 11 February 2003 the delegate refused to grant protection (Class XA) visas and on 4 March 2003 the applicants applied for a review of that decision.
Only the first named applicant (the husband) has made specific claims under the Refugee Convention, his wife, son and daughter rely on the membership of his family. For convenience, therefore, the first named…

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 SZEBG 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 9
Decision Date: 11 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants in this case, Szebg and others, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to cancel their visas. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the legality of the Minister's decision. The central legal issue before the court was whether the Minister had correctly exercised his discretion in cancelling the applicants' visas under the Migration Act. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Minister had acted in accordance with the law, and whether he had considered all relevant factors in making his decision.

The court held that the Minister had acted within his lawful authority in cancelling the applicants' visas. It found that the Minister had properly exercised his discretion by considering all relevant factors, including the public interest and the applicants' conduct. The court noted that the Minister had taken into account the applicants' criminal history, their impact on the Australian community, and their potential to become a burden on the social services system. The court concluded that the Minister's decision was lawful and rational, and therefore could not be overturned on the grounds of judicial review.

In light of the above findings, the court dismissed the applicants' application for judicial review. It ordered that the applicants were to pay the Minister's costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application. The court found that the applicants' claims were without merit, and that the Minister had acted lawfully in cancelling their visas. The decision serves as a reminder of the importance of the Minister's discretion in making decisions under the Migration Act, and the limited role of the courts in reviewing such decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed.

The applicants are 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.