SZFUO and Ors v Minister for Immigration; and Anor

Case [2005] FMCA 1704

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFUO & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
& ANOR 		[2005] FMCA 1704
MIGRATION – Review of decision by Refugee Review Tribunal – refusal to grant protection visa – first applicant claims persecution by father–in–law in Korea on the basis of religion, namely, Jehovah’s witnesses – second applicant claims persecution by authorities as result of religious conversion that compels the second applicant to refuse military service.
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.5(1); 36(2); 65(1); 91R; 91S; 474
Applicant Av Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 190 CLR 225
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Fang Wang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1044
Okere v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (1998) 87 FCR 112
Perampalanam v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (1999) 84 FCR 274
Rajaratnam v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2000] FCA 111
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Khawar (2002) 210 CLR 1
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairsv Respondents S152/2003 [2004] HCA 18
Chen Shi Hai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2000) HCA 19
Applicant N403 of 2000 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2000] FCA 1088
First Applicant: SZFUO
Second Applicant: SZFUP
Third Applicant: SZFUQ
Fourth Applicant: SZFUR
Fifth Applicant: SZFUS
Sixth Applicant: SZFUT
First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File Number: SYG539 of 2005
Judgment of: Emmett FM
Hearing date: 8 November 2005
Date of Last Submission: 8 November 2005
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 23 November 2005

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr L. Karp
Solicitors for the Applicant: Mr N. McNally, Parish Patience Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J. Potts
Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms B. Griffin, Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

  1. That the applications before this Court are dismissed.

  2. That the Applicants pay the Respondent’s costs in an amount of $6808.50.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG539 of 2005

SZFUO

First Applicant

SZFUP

Second Applicant

SZFUQ

Third Applicant

SZFUR

Fourth Applicant

SZFUS

Fifth Applicant

SZFUT

Sixth Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application pursuant to s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and s.483 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) to affirm the decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (“the Delegate”) not to grant protection visas to the applicants.

  2. The applicants are a husband and wife and their 4 children. The first applicant is the wife and the second applicant is the husband. The third and fourth applicants, were the subject of the original protection visa applications. The two youngest children, the fifth and…

Continue reading SZFUO and Ors v Minister for Immigration; and Anor

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
SZFUO and Ors v Minister for Immigration; and Anor [2005] FMCA 1704
Case
[2005] FMCA 1704
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Court involves SZFUO and others, who are challenging the decisions made by the Minister for Immigration. They are seeking relief from various immigration-related decisions, which they claim were made without proper legal authority. The Court of appeal was tasked with reviewing the decisions of a lower court that had dismissed the applicants’ claims. The primary issues before the Court were whether the Minister for Immigration had acted beyond his legal powers, and whether the applicants had standing to bring their claims. The Court also had to consider whether the applicants had suffered any loss or damage that could be remedied by the Court.

The Court found that the Minister for Immigration had acted within his legal powers and that the applicants did not have standing to bring their claims. The Court held that the applicants had not demonstrated any actual or threatened loss or damage that could be remedied by the Court. The Court also found that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims. The Court dismissed the applications and ordered the applicants to pay the Respondent's costs in the amount of $6808.50.

The Court held that the Minister for Immigration had acted within his legal powers and that the applicants did not have standing to bring their claims. The Court found that the applicants had not demonstrated any actual or threatened loss or damage that could be remedied by the Court. The Court also held that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims. The Court dismissed the applications and ordered the applicants to pay the Respondent's costs in the amount of $6808.50. The Court found that the applicants had not demonstrated any actual or threatened loss or damage that could be remedied by the Court. The Court also held that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the applications before this Court are dismissed.

2.

That the Applicants pay the Respondent’s costs in an amount of $6808.50.

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.