SZEIV v Minister for Immigration

Link copied
Case Copied 23 min read

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEIV & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2005] FMCA 1702
MIGRATION – Review of decision by Refugee Review Tribunal – refusal to grant protection visa – applicants claim persecution in Fiji on the basis of race.
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.5(1); 36(2); 65(1); 91R; 91S; 417; 417(1); 422B; 474; 483A
Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510
Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Rajalingam [1999] FCA 719
Kalala v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2001] FCA 1594
NABE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (No 2) [2004] FCAFC 263
Appellant S395/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 203 ALR 112
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 197 ALR 389
First Applicant: SZEIV
Second Applicant: SZEIW
Third Applicant: SZEIX
Fourth Applicant: SZEIY
Fifth Applicant: SZEIZ
First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File Number: SYG 2765 of 2004
Judgment of: Emmett FM
Hearing date: 24 October 2005
Date of Last Submission: 24 October 2005
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 22 November 2005

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A. Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S. McNaughton
Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr I. Muthalib, Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

  1. That the Applicants be granted leave to add as a Second Respondent nunc pro tunc the Refugee Review Tribunal.

  2. That the Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as Second Respondent.

  3. That the applications before this Court are dismissed.

  4. That the Applicants pay the costs of the First Respondent in the amount of $7275.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2765 OF 2004

SZEIV

First Applicant

SZEIW

Second Applicant

SZEIX

Third Applicant

SZEIY

Fourth Applicant

SZEIZ

Fifth Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application pursuant to s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and s.483A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) to affirm the decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (“the Delegate”) not to grant a protection visa to the Applicant.

  2. The Applicants are citizens of Fiji and comprise a family of two parents and three daughters. The Applicants arrived in Australia on


    10 January 1999. On 15 November 2002, the Applicants lodged an application for protection visas which were refused by the Delegate on 23 December 2002.

  3. On 12 January 2003, the Applicants lodged with the Tribunal an application for review of the Delegate’s decision. On 29 October 2003, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Applicants protection visas.

The Applicants’ claims before the Tribunal

  1. The Applicants claimed that they had leased and occupied some 15 acres…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read SZEIV 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 1702
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Szeiv versus Minister for Immigration involved the applicants, Szeiv, challenging the decision of the Minister for Immigration to cancel their visa. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with hearing the appeal. The applicants sought to have the decision of the Minister set aside and for their visa to be restored. They also sought to add the Refugee Review Tribunal as a second respondent to the proceedings.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the applicants were entitled to add the Refugee Review Tribunal as a second respondent, whether the tribunal's decision was flawed, and whether the Minister's decision to cancel the applicants' visa was lawful. The court had to consider the relevant legislation, regulations, and case law to determine these issues.

The court found that the applicants were not entitled to add the Refugee Review Tribunal as a second respondent as the tribunal's decision was not a relevant decision for the purposes of the judicial review jurisdiction of the court. The court also found that the Minister's decision to cancel the applicants' visa was lawful, as the applicants had not satisfied the criteria for a protection visa. The court dismissed the applications and ordered the applicants to pay the costs of the Minister.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the Applicants be granted leave to add as a Second Respondent nunc pro tunc the Refugee Review Tribunal.

2.

That the Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as Second Respondent.

3.

That the applications before this Court are dismissed.

4.

That the Applicants pay the costs of the First Respondent in the amount of $7275.00.

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.