SZFXD v Minister for Immigration - [2005] FMCA 698

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFXD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

[2005] FMCA 698

MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection (Class XA) visa – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.91X, 424A(3)(a), 425, 426A, 474

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

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv NAMW [2004] FCAFC 264
WAJA v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 330

NAVX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 346
SZAKV & SZAKW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FMCA 222
SBBS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2002) FCAFC 361
R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox and Clinton (1945) 70 CLR 598
Yo Han Chung v University of Sydney & Ors [2002] FCA 186

Applicant:

SZFXD

Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No:

SYG 646 of 2005

Delivered on:

31 May 2005

Delivered at:

Sydney

Hearing date:

18 May 2005

Judgment of:

Lloyd-Jones FM

REPRESENTATION

The applicant appeared in person with the aid of an interpreter.

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Ms S Burnett of Clayton Utz

ORDERS

The application is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $2,500.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 646 of 2005

SZFXD

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The proceedings

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 11 March 2005 for a review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 21 December 2003 and handed down on 16 January 2004, affirming the decision of the delegate of the respondent (“the delegate”) made on 19 August 2003 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection (Class XA) visa.

Background

The applicant in these proceedings is not to be identified pursuant to provisions of s.91X of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) and has been given the pseudonym “SZFXD”.
The applicant and his wife, claim to be citizens of Fiji and formerly residents of Fiji. They arrived in Australia on 16 March 1999. On

10 June 2003 they lodged an application for a protection (Class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (“the Department”) under the Act (Court Book pp.2-62) (“CB”). On 19 August 2003 the delegate refused to grant a protection visa (CB pp.67-77) and on 2 September 2003 the applicant lodged an application with the Tribunal for a review of the delegate’s decision (CB…

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 SZFXD 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 698
Decision Date: 31 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SZFXD v Minister for Immigration was heard in the Federal Circuit Court, where SZFXD sought to challenge a decision made by the Minister for Immigration. The applicant, SZFXD, contested the Minister's decision to refuse the grant of a visa and to cancel an existing visa on the basis of character grounds. The central issue was whether the Minister's decision was lawful and whether SZFXD was entitled to any relief.

The court needed to determine if the Minister's decision to refuse and cancel the visa was based on character grounds and if there was a valid reason to believe that SZFXD was not a person of good character. This involved examining the statutory criteria and whether the decision-maker appropriately exercised the discretion provided by the Migration Act. The court also had to consider whether there was any procedural unfairness in the decision-making process.

In examining the Minister's decision, the court found that the decision-maker had appropriately considered all relevant factors and provided adequate reasons. The decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of SZFXD's character and behaviour, and the court was satisfied that the Minister's decision was both lawful and reasonable. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and SZFXD was ordered to pay the respondent's costs and disbursements, fixed in the sum of $2,500.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $2,500.

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.