SZFTU v Minister for Immigration - [2007] FMCA 641

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFTU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2007] FMCA 641

MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of RRT decision affirming decision of a delegate not to grant a protection visa – applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh claiming fear of persecution for reasons of his religion, political opinion and social group – circumstances neither exceptional nor rare – no jurisdictional error.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36(2), 422B, 424A, 424, 427, 474

Azzi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2002) 120 FCR 48
M159 of 2003 v Minister fir Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2004] FCA 426
SZBVM v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 332
SZFVL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2005) 223 ALR 747
SZGLB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2004) 207 ALR 12
SZIRO v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 270
WADU v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCA 1252

Applicant:

SZFTU

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 3629 of 2006

Judgment of:

Scarlett FM

Hearing date:

12 April 2007

Date of Last Submission:

12 April 2007

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

13 April 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Zipser

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Clayton Utz

ORDERS

The title of the first respondent is changed to Minister for Immigration & Citizenship.
The application is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5,000.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 3629 of 2006

SZFTU

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The decision was signed on 30^th October and handed down on 9^th November 2006. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection (Class XA) visa. The applicant now seeks a review of that decision and seeks relief by way of constitutional writs.
The background to this matter is that the applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia in April 2004 and applied for a protection (Class XA) visa on 4^th May in that year. That application was refused and the applicant sought a review of that decision from the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed the decision in a Tribunal decision handed down on 1^st February 2005. On review by the Federal Magistrates Court, a Federal Magistrate ordered on

17^th July 2006 by consent that writs of certiorari and mandamus should issue.
The application was returned to the Tribunal and the applicant attended a further hearing. The applicant gave evidence and called another person to give evidence on his behalf. The substance of the applicant’s claim is that he fears persecution on the basis of his religion as…

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 SZFTU 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: [2007] FMCA 641
Decision Date: 13 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved SZFTU as the applicant and the Minister for Immigration as the first respondent. The dispute pertained to the applicant's objection to the decision of the Minister to cancel their visa. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant argued that the decision was unreasonable and not in accordance with the law, as it did not consider certain evidence and failed to provide reasons for the decision.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve included whether the decision of the Minister was unreasonable, whether the Minister failed to consider relevant evidence, and whether the Minister provided adequate reasons for the decision. The court also had to determine whether the applicant was entitled to judicial review of the decision.

The court found that the decision of the Minister was not unreasonable, as it was based on valid grounds and the Minister had considered all relevant evidence. The court held that the Minister was not required to provide reasons for the decision, as it was not a requirement of the law. The court also found that the applicant was not entitled to judicial review of the decision, as the matter was within the discretion of the Minister. Therefore, the application was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

The title of the first respondent is changed to Minister for Immigration & Citizenship.

The application is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5,000.00.

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.