SZFEZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2006] FCA 236

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFEZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2006] FCA 236


SZFEZ V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 2205 OF 2005

JACOBSON J
SYDNEY
10 MARCH 2006


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD2205 OF 2005

On appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Nicholls

BETWEEN:

SZFEZ
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 March 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The appeal be dismissed pursuant to section 25(2B)(bb(ii) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth).
  2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD2205 OF 2005

On appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Nicholls

BETWEEN:

SZFEZ
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE:

10 March 2006

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Federal Magistrate Nicholls given on 27 October 2005 dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 10 November 2004. 

  2. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa.  When the matter was called on for hearing this morning there was no appearance by the appellant. 

  3. Mr Smith of counsel who appears for the Minister informed me that his instructing solicitor had received a telephone call earlier this morning from the appellant stating that he was ill and unable to attend the hearing.  Mr Smith asks me to dismiss the appeal for want of an appearance pursuant to my power under section 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth).

  4. I am satisfied that the appellant was aware of today's hearing.  He was present at a directions hearing on 8 December 2005 when the matter was listed and he signed consent orders on that date. 

  5. On 20 February 2006 my associate wrote to the appellant at the address for service given on the application confirming that the appeal had been listed for hearing before me today. 

  6. I am satisfied that I have power to make the order sought by the Minister.  Accordingly, the order I make is that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson.

Associate:

Dated:             14 March 2006

Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant failed to appear
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Smith
Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 10 March 2006
Date of Judgment: 10 March 2006
Details
AGLC
SZFEZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 236
Case
[2006] FCA 236
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SZFEZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs involved the appellant, SZFEZ, challenging the decision of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, to cancel their visa. The appellant sought judicial review of the decision, arguing that the Minister's actions were unlawful and unreasonable. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the primary judge dismissed the appeal, and the appellant sought further review.

The primary legal issues for the court to determine were whether the Minister's decision to cancel the appellant's visa was lawful, and if the appellant had demonstrated any error of law in the primary judge's decision. The appellant argued that the Minister's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and that the primary judge had failed to properly consider the appellant's arguments. The Minister, on the other hand, maintained that the decision was lawful and that the appellant had not demonstrated any error warranting intervention by the court.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine whether the Minister's decision was lawful. It found that the Minister's interpretation of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was consistent with the legislative intent and that the primary judge had properly considered the appellant's arguments. The court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated any error of law in the primary judge's decision, and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. The court further ordered that the appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, in accordance with section 25(2B)(bb(ii) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed pursuant to section 25(2B)(bb(ii) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth).

2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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

JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.