SZHGY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZHGY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 796
SZHGY V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
NSD 405 OF 2006
MOORE J
14 JUNE 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 405 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZHGY
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 JUNE 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.   Leave to appeal, if necessary, be refused.
2.   The appeal be dismissed.
3.   The appellant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1200.00.
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 405 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZHGY
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

14 JUNE 2006

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is a notice of appeal filed on 28 February 2006 against the judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 9 February 2006, concerning a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 27 May 2003: see SZHGY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FMCA 223. The Federal Magistrate dismissed as incompetent the application for judicial review and directed that no further application be filed by the appellant for review of the Tribunal's decision of 27 May 2003 or the delegate's decision of 22 August 2002 without leave of the Court. His Honour's findings included that the Tribunal's decision was a privative clause decision such that the application was time barred under s 477(1A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), that an issue estoppel arose and the doctrine of res judicata applied.
The Minister submitted, probably correctly, that the appeal was incompetent as the decision of the Federal Magistrate was interlocutory and that leave to appeal was therefore required.
The application to the Federal Magistrates Court which was filed on 5 October 2005 had been preceded by other litigation in which the appellant challenged the same Tribunal decision. That earlier litigation took place in the Federal Magistrates Court, this Court and the High Court, culminating in a decision of the High Court to refuse special leave on 8 September 2005. Nothing has been said by the appellant in this matter to suggest that any error attended the decision of the Federal Magistrate. Accordingly, I order that if leave be necessary, leave to appeal be refused and that the appeal be dismissed. The appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1200.00.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.
Associate:
Dated: 10 July 2006

The Appellant appeared in person

Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

Date of Hearing: 14 June 2006

Date of Judgment: 14 June 2006

In the case of SZHGY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the appellant, a non-citizen, contested the Federal Court's decision to reject his application for review of a decision to cancel his visa. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs was the first respondent, and the Attorney-General was the second respondent. The Federal Court was tasked with deciding whether the administrative decision to cancel the appellant's visa was lawful and whether the appellant's rights under the Migration Act were breached.

The court had to address several legal issues, including whether the decision to cancel the visa was made on invalid grounds, whether the appellant's rights to procedural fairness and natural justice were upheld, and whether the decision-maker had acted irrationally or irrationally. The court also had to consider whether the appellant's rights under the Migration Act were breached and whether the decision to cancel the visa was lawful.

The court found that the decision to cancel the visa was made on valid grounds and that the appellant's rights to procedural fairness and natural justice were upheld. The court held that the decision-maker had not acted irrationally or irrationally and that the appellant's rights under the Migration Act were not breached. The court concluded that the decision to cancel the visa was lawful and dismissed the appeal. The appellant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of $1200.00. Leave to appeal, if necessary, was refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 405 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	SZHGY APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 JUNE 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	14 JUNE 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

The Appellant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	14 June 2006
Date of Judgment:	14 June 2006