SZGEQ v Minister for Immigration

Case [2006] FCA 95


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZGEQ v Minister for Immigration,
Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 95


SZGEQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1911 of 2005

JACOBSON J
SYDNEY
6 FEBRUARY 2006


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1911 of 2005

BETWEEN:

SZGEQ
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

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
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE:

6 FEBRUARY 2006

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. 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. 

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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
Details
AGLC
SZGEQ v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 95
Case
[2006] FCA 95
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of SZGEQ v Minister for Immigration, the applicant, SZGEQ, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration. The decision in question involved the applicant's application for a visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The primary issue before the court was whether the Minister acted lawfully and reasonably in denying the visa application. The applicant argued that there were procedural errors and that the Minister failed to properly consider relevant information, which led to an unreasonable decision.

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

JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.