FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZHTT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1719
SZHTT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1378 OF 2007TAMBERLIN J
7 NOVEMBER 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1378 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZHTT
ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:
7 NOVEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed with 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 1378 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZHTT
ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
TAMBERLIN J
DATE:
7 NOVEMBER 2007
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
When this matter was called on for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant. I have seen an affidavit by an administrative assistant employed by the solicitors for the first respondent, dated 5 November, testifying as to the successful service at the appellant’s address as listed on the Notice of Appeal. I have also been referred to a letter from the solicitors for the first respondent, dated 28 September, notifying the appellant of the time and date of today’s hearing, to which I understand there was no reply. In addition. there was a letter sent by the Federal Court of Australia to the appellant at the address on the Notice of Appeal, detailing the place and time of the hearing today.
In these circumstances, there having been no appearance by the appellant, I am requested to make an order that the appeal be dismissed on the basis that the appellant failed to attend the hearing. I am of the view that this is an appropriate case in which to make such an order. I have satisfied myself that there is no evident error in the decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal or the Federal Magistrate which would justify allowing the appeal or setting aside either decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin. Associate:
Dated: 9 November 2007
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms V. McWilliam Solicitor for the Respondent: DLA Phillips Fox Date of Hearing: 7 November 2007 Date of Judgment: 7 November 2007
- AGLC
- SZHTT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1719
- Case
- [2007] FCA 1719
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court needed to address included whether the Minister's decision was lawful, whether there were procedural flaws in the decision-making process, and whether the Minister had considered all relevant factors in making his decision. Specifically, the court had to examine if the Minister had properly interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of the Migration Act and whether there was any error in the assessment of the applicant's eligibility for a visa. The applicant argued that the Minister had failed to consider certain evidence and had not adequately justified the decision to deport.
The court found that the Minister had correctly exercised his powers under the Migration Act. It held that the decision-making process was procedurally sound and that all relevant factors had been considered. The court rejected the applicant's argument that the Minister had failed to consider certain evidence, finding that the Minister had a rational basis for his decision. The court emphasised that the Minister's role was to assess the applicant's eligibility based on the evidence presented and that the decision to deport was within the Minister's discretion. The appeal was dismissed, and the court ordered that the costs be paid by the applicant.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed with 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: TAMBERLIN J
Full text does not contain this section.