SZGIZ v MIMIA

Case [2006] HCATrans 371


[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

Details
AGLC
SZGIZ v MIMIA [2006] HCATrans 371
Case
[2006] HCATrans 371
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SZGIZ v MIMIA concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia by SZGIZ against a decision of the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute involved the interpretation and application of provisions within the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) concerning the cancellation of a visa. SZGIZ sought to challenge the lawfulness of the cancellation of their visa by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.

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.