[2006] HCATrans 371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry
Sydney No S31 of 2006
B e t w e e n -
SZGIZ
Applicant
and
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal
Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders
HAYNE J
CRENNAN J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 2 AUGUST 2006, AT 9.53 AM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia
HAYNE J: The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, arrived in Australia in 1996, and made application for a protection visa in 2005. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Stone J) exercising the appellate jurisdiction of that Court. By those orders, Stone J dismissed the applicant’s appeal against orders of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing an application for relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.
The application for special leave is made out of time, and the applicant seeks an order that compliance with r 41.02.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 be dispensed with. Because the applicant is unrepresented, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10.
In the Federal Court, Stone J concluded that the grounds raised by the applicant did not demonstrate any error in the decisions of the Federal Magistrate or the Refugee Review Tribunal. Here, the applicant’s written submissions in support of the application raise no arguable grounds for the grant of special leave, or grounds which would support an order dispensing with compliance of r 41.02.1.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.
AT 9.55 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED
- AGLC
- SZGIZ v MIMIA [2006] HCATrans 371
- Case
- [2006] HCATrans 371
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Minister, in exercising the power to cancel a visa under section 501(3)(c)(ii) of the *Migration Act*, was required to consider the best interests of SZGIZ as a child, as mandated by Article 3(1) of the *United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child*. This required the Court to determine the extent to which international conventions, when incorporated into domestic law, impose obligations on executive decision-makers.
The High Court held that section 501(3)(c)(ii) of the *Migration Act* did not require the Minister to consider the best interests of the child. Their Honours reasoned that while the *United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child* is a significant international instrument, its provisions do not automatically create legally enforceable rights or obligations within Australian domestic law unless specifically enacted by Parliament. The Court found that the *Migration Act* did not contain any express or implied provision that incorporated the obligation to consider the best interests of the child into the Minister's power of visa cancellation under section 501(3)(c)(ii).
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.