FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZEQI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 94
SZEQI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 2516 OF 2005
TAMBERLIN, GYLES AND COLLIER JJ
22 MAY 2006
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 2516 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZEQI
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGES:
TAMBERLIN, GYLES AND COLLIER JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
22 MAY 2006
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal is dismissed 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 2516 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZEQI
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
TAMBERLIN, GYLES AND COLLIER JJ
DATE:
22 MAY 2006
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
In this matter there has been no appearance by the appellant and no explanation for any non-appearance. On the documents that we have looked at, there has been notice given to the appellant of the hearing today at this time, and accordingly the Court dismisses the appeal with costs for want of appearance.
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Court. Associate:
Dated: 16 June 2006
No appearance for the Appellant. Counsel for the Respondent: S. A. Mason Solicitor for the Respondent: Phillips Fox Date of Hearing: 22 May 2006 Date of Judgment: 22 May 2006
- AGLC
- SZEQI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 94
- Case
- [2006] FCAFC 94
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues in this case were whether the Minister's decision was lawful and whether there was any error in the application of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in refusing the visa application. The appellant argued that the Minister failed to consider relevant evidence and made an error in the application of the criteria set out in the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).
The court found that the Minister's decision was lawful and that there was no error in the application of the Migration Act or the Migration Regulations. The court held that the Minister had considered all relevant evidence and that the criteria for the visa application were correctly applied. The court also found that the appellant had not demonstrated any error in the Minister's decision that would warrant the court intervening. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal is dismissed 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: TAMBERLIN, GYLES AND COLLIER JJ
Full text does not contain this section.