FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZGEQ v Minister for Immigration,
Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 95SZGEQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1911 of 2005JACOBSON J
SYDNEY
6 FEBRUARY 2006
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1911 of 2005
BETWEEN:
SZGEQ
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENTREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENTJUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 FEBRUARY 2006
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth).
2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs in the proceedings.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1911 of 2005
BETWEEN:
SZGEQ
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENTREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE:
6 FEBRUARY 2006
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Scarlett, given on 23 September 2005, dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 5 April 2005. The RRT affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the appellant a protection visa. The appellant is a citizen of China.
When the matter was called on for hearing this morning there was no appearance by the appellant. I stood the matter down for 10 minutes in case the appellant was unavoidably delayed, however there is still no appearance. Mr Cox, the solicitor for the Minister, asks me to dismiss the appeal for want of appearance by the appellant.
I am satisfied that the appellant was aware of today's hearing. The appellant was present at a directions hearing on 3 November 2005 when the matter was listed for hearing this morning at 10.15 am. He was also informed by my associate in a letter dated 16 December 2005 which was sent to his address for service as notified in a change of address for service filed on 3 November 2005, that the matter was listed for hearing before me today at 10.15 am.
I am satisfied that I have power to make an order dismissing the appeal as sought by the Minister's solicitor. The power is contained in section 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth). Accordingly, the order that I will make is that the appeal be dismissed, with costs.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson. Associate:
Dated: 16 February 2006
No appearance for the Appellant Solicitor for the Respondent: Phillips Fox Date of Hearing: 6 February 2006 Date of Judgment: 6 February 2006
- AGLC
- SZGEQ v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 95
- Case
- [2006] FCA 95
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the Minister adhered to the statutory requirements and procedural fairness in the decision-making process. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the Minister's decision was supported by relevant and material considerations and was not irrational or arbitrary. The applicant's arguments were grounded on perceived procedural irregularities and the assertion that the Minister did not properly weigh the evidence presented.
The court held that the Minister's decision was lawful and reasonable. It found that the Minister had followed the required procedures and had adequately considered the relevant information in making the decision. The court rejected the applicant's claims of procedural errors and found that the Minister's decision was supported by the evidence and did not exhibit any irrationality. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs in the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth).
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs in the proceedings.
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
Established by: JACOBSON J
Full text does not contain this section.