SZGRG v Minister for Immigration - [2009] FMCA 62

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZGRG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2009] FMCA 62

MIGRATION – Application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – Tribunal decision subject to judicial review in FMCA – No jurisdiction to entertain further application – res judicata – issue estoppel – application dismissed.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.477
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.13.10(a)

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZKKC; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJMA [2007] FCAFC 105
SZGRG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FMCA 585
SZGRG v Minister for Immigrationand Citizenship [2008] FCA 1326
Somanadar v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 178 ALR 677
Thayananthan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 132 FCR 222
Daniel v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 395

Applicant:

SZGRG

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 1 of 2009

Judgment of:

Nicholls FM

Hearing date:

4 February 2009

Date of Last Submission:

4 February 2009

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

4 February 2009

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

None

Solicitors for the Applicant:

None

Appearance for the Respondents:

Ms D Attard

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

The application made on 2 January 2009 is dismissed pursuant to s.477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $1,000.
The applicant not file any further application in relation to the Tribunal decision signed on 2 November 2006, and handed down on 21 November 2006, without first obtaining leave of this Court.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1 of 2009

SZGRG

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex Tempore; Revised from Transcript)

(As Corrected)

I have before me an application made on 2 January 2009 pursuant to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) seeking review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), signed on 2 November 2006, and handed down on 21 November 2006, which affirmed the decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse a protection visa to the applicant.
I also have before me an application seeking summary dismissal of the applicant’s application. This application was made by way of response filed on 13 January 2009 by the first respondent, and was pressed before the Court today by the solicitor for the first respondent.
The following material has been put before the Court in addition to the applications:
1)Affidavit of the applicant made on 2 January 2009, with annexure.
2)Affidavit of Angela Margaret Nanson made on 16 January 2008, with annexures.
3)The affidavit of Denise Attard made on 30 January 2009 with annexures, and in particular the annexure being a copy of the Tribunal’s record relating to the handing down of its decision to the applicant, and the record revealing that the applicant was served in person with the Tribunal’s…

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 SZGRG 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: [2009] FMCA 62
Decision Date: 4 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of SZGRG v Minister for Immigration involved a dispute over a decision made by the Minister for Immigration in relation to the applicant's application for a visa. The applicant, SZGRG, contested the decision made by the Minister, which upheld the refusal of a visa by a delegate. This appeal was brought before the Court under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The primary legal issue the Court needed to address was whether the decision of the Minister was lawful and whether the Minister correctly exercised his discretion in declining to grant the visa.

The Court examined the legal framework governing the Minister's discretion and the applicable provisions of the Migration Act. The applicant argued that the Minister had failed to consider relevant material and had not exercised the discretion rationally. The Court considered the scope of judicial review in such matters, focusing on whether the decision was legally valid and whether the Minister had acted in accordance with the statutory requirements. The Court concluded that the Minister had properly exercised his discretion and that the decision was based on relevant considerations. The Court found no error in the Minister's decision-making process.

As a result of this analysis, the Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the Minister's decision. The Court found that the Minister's decision was lawful and that there was no basis for the Court to interfere with the Minister's exercise of discretion. The Court also ordered that the applicant pay the Minister's costs and restrained the applicant from filing further applications without leave from the Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application made on 2 January 2009 is dismissed pursuant to s.477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $1,000.

The applicant not file any further application in relation to the Tribunal decision signed on 2 November 2006, and handed down on 21 November 2006, without first obtaining leave of this Court.

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.