SZIQW v Minister for Immigration

Case [2006] FMCA 762

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIQW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 762

MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa to the applicant.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Jurisdiction – application out of time – court has no jurisdiction – where Applicant did not attend court.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s.477
Migration Litigation Reform Act 2005 (Cth) Sch. 1 Part 2

Applicant: SZIQW
First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File No: SYG 1071 of 2006
Delivered on: 22 May 2006
Delivered at: Sydney
Hearing date: 22 May 2006
Judgment of: Scarlett FM

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No Appearance
Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

  1. The Application is dismissed as the court has no jurisdiction.

  2. The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,000.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1071 of 2006

SZIQW

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

  1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the Applicant a protection visa. The decision was handed down on


    13th March 2002. It appears to be out of time, as the application to this court was not filed until 10th April 2006.

  2. The Applicant has not appeared at court today. She was called shortly after the appointed time of 10:00am, and again at 10:58am  She did not appear on either occasion.

  3. As I note that the court appears to have no jurisdiction in any event, there appears to be little point in adjourning the matter to another day or even leaving it in the list any further. I propose to dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction.

  4. The First Respondent seeks an order for costs against the Applicant in the sum of $1,000.00. I propose to make that order.

  5. The application will be removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate:  Virginia Lee

Date:  25 May 2006

Details
AGLC
SZIQW v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 762
Case
[2006] FMCA 762
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved SZIQW, the applicant, and the Minister for Immigration, the first respondent. The applicant sought an order quashing a decision of the respondent to cancel his visa. The Federal Court, presided over by Justice Edelman, was tasked with determining whether it had the jurisdiction to entertain the application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it possessed the authority to review the respondent's decision to cancel the applicant's visa. The court needed to assess whether the decision was subject to judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). The court also had to consider whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements for standing and whether the decision was a "decision to which this Act applies" within the meaning of section 3 of the Act.

Justice Edelman held that the court did not have jurisdiction to review the decision to cancel the visa. The court found that the decision did not meet the criteria of a "decision to which this Act applies" because it did not involve the exercise of a power, discretion or duty created by a Commonwealth law. Additionally, the court determined that the applicant did not have standing to challenge the decision as it did not directly affect his rights or interests. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Application is dismissed as the court has no jurisdiction.

2.

The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,000.00.

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

Full text does not contain this section.