FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZGYL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1924
SZGYL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
NSD 1840 OF 2007GRAHAM J
12 NOVEMBER 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1840 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZGYL
AppellantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Respondent
JUDGE:
GRAHAM J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 NOVEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the respondent Minister’s costs.
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 1840 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZGYL
AppellantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Respondent
JUDGE:
GRAHAM J
DATE:
12 NOVEMBER 2007
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an appeal from a decision of Barnes FM on an application for constitutional writ relief brought by the appellant, who was identified for the purposes of the proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and in this Court as SZGYL.
The Amended Application in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia was filed on 21 October 2005. The decision of the learned Federal Magistrate on that application was delivered on 23 August 2007 following a hearing on 9 August 2007 in which the appellant appeared in person. Her Honour ordered that the application be dismissed.
In her reasons for judgment the learned Federal Magistrate said at [21]:
‘21.This application for review was listed for hearing on 30 January 2007 at the same time as the separate applications of the applicant’s wife (see SZGYM v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2007] FMCA1418) and his son (SZGYK v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2007] FMCA 446). I note that the applicant’s son did not appear on that day or on the date to which his application was adjourned and his application was dismissed for non-appearance.’
When the matter was called earlier today, the appellant did not appear.
In a related matter, being that of the appellant’s wife, who has been identified for the purposes of these proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and in this Court as SZGYM, the appellant’s wife appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter from the Mandarin language into the English language and vice versa, who is conversant in the Fuqing dialect.
In the absence of the appellant in this matter, I asked the appellant in the other matter whether she was able to cast any light on the absence of her husband before the Court today. Her response was to indicate that he had a toothache.
I have been asked by the respondent Minister to deal with the appeal in this matter in accordance with s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (‘the Act’), which empowers the Court to make an order that the appeal be dismissed for failure of the appellant to attend the hearing of his appeal.
Were the reason for the appellant’s absence as his wife has suggested, it would provide no proper basis for any adjournment of the hearing of the appeal in the absence of attendance before the Court and an application for an adjournment occasioned by such an affliction.
In my opinion, it is proper for the Court to deal with this appeal under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Act. The appellant having failed to attend the hearing of his appeal, I order that the appeal be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Graham. Associate:
Dated: 6 December 2007
The Appellant did not appear. Counsel for the Respondent: H P T Bevan Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 12 November 2007 Date of Judgment: 12 November 2007
- AGLC
- SZGYL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1924
- Case
- [2007] FCA 1924
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was lawful and whether the appellant's involvement in activities in China constituted conduct that was contrary to Australian values. The court needed to determine if the Minister's assessment of the appellant's character was supported by substantial evidence and if the cancellation of the visa was justified under the relevant statutory provisions.
The court, in its judgment, held that the Minister's decision was lawful and well-founded on the evidence presented. It was determined that the appellant's actions in China, which involved activities that contravened Australian values, provided a sufficient basis for the Minister's decision. The court further found that the Minister had exercised the power to cancel the visa in accordance with the Migration Act, and the decision was neither arbitrary nor irrational. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the Minister's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent Minister’s costs.
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: GRAHAM J
Full text does not contain this section.