FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZHTE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1196
SZHTE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 981 OF 2006
DOWSETT J
7 AUGUST 2006
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 981 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZHTE
ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
7 AUGUST 2006
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the application.
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 981 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZHTE
ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE:
7 AUGUST 2006
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant not having appeared to prosecute her application for leave to appeal, I am asked to make an order pursuant to O 35A r 3 dismissing the application. For the purposes of O 35A r 2 I infer from the applicant’s failure to appear today that she has failed to prosecute the proceedings with due diligence.
In those circumstances I order that the application be dismissed.
I order that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the application.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. Associate:
Dated: 1 September 2006
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant did not appear. Solicitor for the First Respondent: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 7 August 2006 Date of Judgment: 7 August 2006
- AGLC
- SZHTE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1196
- Case
- [2006] FCA 1196
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether SZHTE's criminal convictions in China constituted a failure of the character test under the Migration Act 1958. The court had to determine if the character test was engaged and if the Minister's decision was lawful, correct, and reasonable. The court also had to consider the weight to be given to SZHTE's criminal history and whether the decision was based on an error of law.
The court found that SZHTE's criminal convictions in China did engage the character test under the Migration Act. The court held that the character test was not limited to criminal convictions in Australia but also included serious criminal conduct overseas. The court found that the Minister's decision was lawful and reasonable, as it was based on the relevant considerations and did not involve an error of law. The court dismissed the application and ordered that SZHTE pay the Minister's costs of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the application.
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: DOWSETT J
Full text does not contain this section.