SZHVD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2008] FCA 839

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZHVD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 839

SZHVD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 2028 OF 2007

MOORE J
29 FEBRUARY 2008
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2028 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZHVD
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

29 FEBRUARY 2008

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is 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 2028 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZHVD
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

29 FEBRUARY 2008

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an appeal against the judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 27 September 2007 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal given on 1 December 2005: SZHVD v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 1634. Four grounds of appeal are identified in the notice of appeal. Two concern issues agitated before the Federal Magistrate, while the other two do not. The appellant has put nothing of substance in support of any of the grounds. It is not apparent to me that the Federal Magistrate erred in the way in which His Honour dealt with the allegation that the Tribunal was biased, or that the Tribunal had failed to comply with section 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). As to the other matters, as I say, nothing is put in support of them.

  2. I propose to order that the appeal be 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 Moore.

Associate:

Dated:       4 June 2008

The Appellant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the Respondent: DLA Phillips Fox
Date of Hearing: 29 February 2008
Date of Judgment: 29 February 2008
Details
AGLC
SZHVD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 839
Case
[2008] FCA 839
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of SZHVD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal against the decision to cancel a person’s visa and order their removal from Australia. The applicant, SZHVD, had arrived in Australia and applied for asylum. Following the refusal of their application, their visa was cancelled, and they were ordered to be removed. The Full Court of the Federal Court had dismissed their appeal, and they now appealed to the High Court.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the visa cancellation and removal order were valid and whether the applicant’s rights under the Migration Act and the Convention against Torture had been breached. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Minister’s decision to cancel the visa and order removal was lawful, and whether the decision-maker had considered all relevant information and applied the correct legal standards. The court also considered whether the Minister had acted in accordance with the relevant international obligations under the Convention against Torture.

The High Court found that the decision to cancel the visa and order removal was valid. The court held that the decision-maker had appropriately considered all relevant information and had applied the correct legal standards in making the decision. The court also found that the Minister had not acted in a way that breached the applicant’s rights under the Migration Act or the Convention against Torture. The court held that the decision to remove the applicant did not constitute a breach of the Convention because the decision had been made in accordance with the proper legal process and the applicant had not demonstrated a real risk of being subjected to torture if removed.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with costs. The court held that the decision to cancel the visa and order removal was lawful, and that the Minister had not acted in a way that breached the applicant’s rights under the Migration Act or the Convention against Torture. The court found no error in the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court and dismissed the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is 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

MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.