FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZIMU v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 316
SZIMU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNALNSD 1809 of 2006
LINDGREN J
20 FEBRUARY 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1809 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZIMU
AppellantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER:
20 FEBRUARY 2007
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the first respondent be amended to read ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’.
2. The appeal be dismissed.
3. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.
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 1809 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZIMU
AppellantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
LINDGREN J
DATE:
20 FEBRUARY 2007
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
There is listed for hearing today an appeal against an order of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia made on 29 August 2006 ([2006] FMCA 1321) dismissing SZIMU's application to that Court for a review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), which has filed a submitting appearance on the appeal. The Tribunal's Record of Decision was signed on 19 January 2006 and handed down on 9 February 2006. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent (respectively ‘the Delegate’ and ‘the Minister’) not to grant a protection visa to SZIMU.
SZIMU has not appeared today to prosecute the appeal. Ms Evelyn Lu, a Mandarin interpreter, has attended Court for the hearing. So, of course, have counsel and the solicitor for the Minister.
The Court’s National Appeals Registrar wrote to SZIMU on 13 December 2006 advising him that his appeal would be listed for hearing today at 10.15 am. In addition, on 14 February 2007, the solicitors for the Minister, DLA Phillips Fox, wrote to SZIMU both at his residential address and at the post office box address which he had given as his address in his notice of appeal, advising him that the matter was listed for hearing today. That letter enclosed a copy of the Minister’s submissions and enclosed a map showing him where the Court was to be found.
In addition to all of this, the interpreter, Ms Lu, has informed the Court that she had a telephone conversation with SZIMU who told her that he was in Melbourne and would not be attending the hearing.
The appeal should be dismissed under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) with costs.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lindgren. Associate:
Dated: 12 March 2007
The Appellant did not appear Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S Kaw-Bains Solicitor for the Respondent: DLA Phillips Fox Date of Hearing: 20 February 2007 Date of Judgment: 20 February 2007
- AGLC
- SZIMU v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 316
- Case
- [2007] FCA 316
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to cancel SZIMU's visa was lawful and whether the requisite legal principles were correctly applied in reaching that decision. This included examining the procedural fairness and the application of the Migration Act. The court needed to determine if the Minister's decision was supported by appropriate evidence and if the decision-making process adhered to the relevant statutory requirements.
The Federal Court found that the Minister's decision to cancel SZIMU's visa was properly made and in accordance with the law. The court held that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the correct legal principles were applied. The appellant's arguments regarding procedural fairness and the application of the Migration Act were rejected, as the court found no errors in the decision-making process. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The name of the first respondent be amended to read ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’.
2. The appeal be dismissed.
3. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.
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: LINDGREN J
Full text does not contain this section.