SZFAM v Minister for Immigration

Case [2005] FMCA 1825

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFAM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2005] FMCA 1825
MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection (Class XA) visa – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.91X, 424A(1), 474
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 (1995) 184 CLR 163
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26
Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407
SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 24
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs v Al Shamry [2001] FCA 919
NAZY v Minister forImmigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 744
SZEKY v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1138
VAF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 123
Yo Han Chung v University of Sydney & Ors [2002] FCA 186

Applicant: SZFAM
First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File No: SYG3226 of 2004
Delivered on: 16 December 2005
Delivered at: Sydney
Hearing date: 10 November 2005
Judgment of: Lloyd-Jones FM

REPRESENTATION

The applicant appeared in person.

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr R Beech-Jones
Solicitors for the Respondents: Phillips Fox

ORDERS

  1. The Refugee Review Tribunal is joined as second respondent.

  2. The application is dismissed.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG3226 of 2004

SZFAM

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &
MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The proceedings

  1. 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 2 November 2004 for a judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 26 August 2004 and handed down on


    21 September 2004, affirming the decision of the delegate of the respondent (“the delegate”) made on 11 May 2004 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection (Class XA) visa.  The applicant seeks unstated relief against the decision of the Tribunal.

  2. On 10 November 2004 the respondent solicitors filed a Notice of Objection to Competency.  In that Notice the respondent objects to the jurisdiction of this Court to try this application for an order under the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) in relation to the decision of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) on the grounds that subsection 477(1A) of the Act provides that an application for review must be lodged with the Registry of the Court within 28 days of notification of the decision. On the same day, the respondent solicitors filed an affidavit sworn by Adele Alex…

Continue reading SZFAM v Minister for Immigration

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
SZFAM v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 1825
Case
[2005] FMCA 1825
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, SZFAM, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration, with the Refugee Review Tribunal subsequently being joined as the second respondent. The dispute centred around the Minister's decision to reject the applicant's application for a protection visa, which had been previously determined by the Tribunal. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the Minister's decision was legally valid and whether there were any errors in the application of the Migration Act 1958. Specifically, the court examined if the Minister had properly exercised his discretion in rejecting the application and if the decision-making process adhered to the requirements of natural justice. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the decision was supported by sufficient evidence and whether it was reasonable in the circumstances.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the Minister's decision was lawful and correctly exercised. The court held that the Minister had considered all relevant material and that there was no evidence of procedural unfairness or unreasonableness in the decision-making process. The court also determined that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and did not contain any errors of law. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review.

The court ordered that the Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as the second respondent, dismissed the application, and directed the applicant to pay the costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Refugee Review Tribunal is joined as second respondent.

2.

The application is dismissed.

3.

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.