SZIJM v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIJM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2007] FMCA 350

MIGRATION – No appearance − whether application should be dismissed under Part 13 Rule 13A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 Part 13, Rule 13.03A(c)

Applicant:

SZIJM

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG523 of 2006

Judgment of:

Raphael FM

Hearing date:

8 March 2007

Date of Last Submission:

8 March 2007

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

8 March 2007

REPRESENTATION

No appearance by the applicant

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr A. McInerney

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

Application dismissed pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
Applicant to pay the First Respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $3,250.00.
The name of the First Respondent be changed to “Minister for Immigration and Citizenship”.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG523 of 2006

SZIJM

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This proceeding was set down for hearing today at a directions hearing which took place on 21 March 2006 before Registrar McIllhatton. The applicant was present and assisted by a Mandarin interpreter. She signed some short minutes of order which clearly state that the matter will be heard here today at 2.15p.m. I note that the orders also indicate that the applicant was participating in the legal advice scheme.
At 2.15pm today the applicant had not appeared. It should be noted that the applicant did not attend before the Tribunal. The applicant had not appeared at 2.30pm when her name was called outside the court. In the circumstances I propose to dismiss this application pursuant to Part 13, Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001. I order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of $3,250. I order that the name of the first respondent be changed to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM.

Associate:

Date:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, SZIJM, sought to challenge a decision by the Minister for Immigration to cancel their visa. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with assessing the application. The applicants argued that the Minister's decision was unreasonable, and that they were owed a duty of procedural fairness. The applicants also sought leave to appeal the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to the Federal Court.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicants were entitled to procedural fairness and whether the Minister's decision was unreasonable. The court examined the nature of the relationship between the applicants and the Minister, and the extent to which the Minister owed a duty of procedural fairness to the applicants. The court also considered whether the decision was made in accordance with the applicable law and whether the decision-maker had considered all relevant information.

The court found that the applicants were not owed a duty of procedural fairness as the decision was made under a statutory power and not in a jurisdictional context. The court also found that the Minister's decision was not unreasonable as it was based on the correct law and all relevant considerations had been taken into account. The court held that the applicants had not demonstrated that the decision was so unreasonable as to amount to a failure to exercise the power rationally.

The application was dismissed, and the applicants were not granted leave to appeal the AAT's decision. The Federal Court held that the applicants had not satisfied the criteria for leave to appeal and that the AAT's decision was correct. The court also held that the applicants' arguments did not disclose any error of law on the part of the AAT.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established