SZEKR v Minister for Immigration - [2005] FMCA 882

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEKR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

[2005] FMCA 882

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

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.91X, 420, 424A, 425, 425A, 426, 426A, 441A, 441C, 474

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 (1995) 184 CLR 163
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26
Haddara v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1999) 166 ALR 401
Rahman v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1999) 94 FCR 391
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Capitly (1999) 55 ALD 365
VNAA v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 134
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs v NAMW [2004] FCAFC 264

Applicant:

SZEKR

Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No:

SYG 2859 of 2004

Delivered on:

29 June 2005

Delivered at:

Sydney

Hearing date:

18 May 2005

Judgment of:

Lloyd-Jones FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr T Ower

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms T Wong

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Clayton Utz

ORDERS

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2859 of 2004

SZEKR

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The proceedings

These proceedings were commenced by an application under s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) filed in the Sydney Registry of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia on 17 September 2004 for a review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 27 July 2004 and handed down on 17 August 2004, affirming the decision of the delegate of the respondent (“the delegate”) made on 29 April 2004 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection (Class XA) visa.

Background

The applicant in these proceedings is not to be identified pursuant to provisions of s.91X of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) and has been given the pseudonym “SZEKR”.
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, arrived in Australia on 21 April 2004. On 23 April 2004 she lodged an application for a protection (Class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (“the Department”) under the Act (Court Book pp.1-29) (“CB”). On

29 April 2004 the delegate refused to grant a protection visa (CB pp.30-42) and on 2 June 2004 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate’s decision (CB pp.43-45).
In a statement accompanying her original visa application, the applicant claimed she is a “common Falun Gong practitioner” and that in May 2002 she travelled to Beijing to “exercise [her] constitutional right to appeal to…

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 SZEKR 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 882
Decision Date: 29 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Szekr v Minister for Immigration involved the applicant, Szekr, who sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse his application for a visa. The case was heard by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The applicant contested the decision, arguing that it was flawed and should be overturned.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Minister's decision was legally sound and if it was made in accordance with relevant legislation and policy. Key issues included the interpretation of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the associated regulations, as well as the application of relevant policy guidelines. Additionally, the court examined whether the Minister had considered all relevant matters and whether the decision was rational and based on appropriate evidence.

The court considered the legislative framework and relevant case law to assess the Minister's decision. It concluded that the Minister had followed the correct procedures and had made the decision based on a proper consideration of all relevant factors. The court found that the Minister's decision was not flawed and did not constitute an error of law. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed. The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs and disbursements associated with the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed.

The applicant is 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.