SZFFY v Minister for Immigration - [2005] FMCA 1439

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFFY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

[2005] FMCA 1439

MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of RRT decision affirming decision not to grant a protection visa – where applicant did not attend the RRT hearing – applicant sent medical certificate on the morning of the hearing – Tribunal then rescheduled hearing in eight days time – Tribunal informed applicant of rescheduled hearing by express post – applicant did not attend rescheduled hearing – procedural fairness.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.426A; 475A

Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
NAIZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 37
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia (2003)HCA 2
Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs (1994) FCR 437

SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 24 followed
SZDQO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1026 – followed
SZDOG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FMCA 972; (2004) 213 ALR 439 - distinguished
SZEMB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FMCA 448

Applicant:

SZFFY

Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File Number:

SYG 3635 of 2004

Judgment of:

Scarlett FM

Hearing date:

14 September 2005

Date of Last Submission:

14 September 2005

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

14 September 2005

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant:

Appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Potts

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Clayton Utz

ORDERS

The application is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $4,500.00 and I allow four (4) months to pay.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 3635 of 2004

SZFFY

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 1 November 2004 after a hearing originally scheduled for 19 October 2004. The hearing was rescheduled at the request of the applicant who faxed a medical certificate to the Tribunal stating that he was unwell and unable to attend.
The Tribunal rescheduled the proceedings to 27 October 2004 and again invited the applicant to attend and give evidence. According to the Tribunal decision, the applicant did not attend the rescheduled hearing nor did he contact the Tribunal to explain his failure to attend.
The Tribunal made the decision to deal with the application without taking any further steps to enable the applicant to appear. In doing so it exercised its powers under s.426A of the Migration Act. The Tribunal handed down its decision on 1 December 2004 affirming the decision of the delegate not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
The applicant seeks a review of that decision. He filed his application for review on 23 December 2004. He filed his amended…

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 SZFFY 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 1439
Decision Date: 14 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, SZFFY, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, who is the respondent, to cancel a visa on character grounds. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the Minister's decision. The primary issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was legally sound, specifically considering whether the decision was based on valid and relevant information, and if the outcome was reasonable and justifiable.

The court considered the statutory framework governing visa cancellations and examined the evidence and reasoning presented by the Minister. It was established that the Minister had acted within their statutory powers and that the decision was supported by relevant and sufficient evidence. The court found that the Minister's decision was not arbitrary or unreasonable, and that the process followed was fair and compliant with the applicable legal standards. Therefore, the court held that the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was lawful.

In conclusion, the Federal Court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review, affirming the Minister's decision to cancel the visa. The court further ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs in the sum of $4,500.00, with a deadline of four months to complete the payment.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $4,500.00 and I allow four (4) months to pay.

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.