FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZJBQ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 717
SZJBQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
NSD 330 OF 2007MADGWICK J
7 MAY 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 330 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZJBQ
ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Respondent
JUDGE:
MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:
7 MAY 2007
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
2.The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal fixed at the sum of $1200.
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 330 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SZJBQ
ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Respondent
JUDGE:
MADGWICK J
DATE:
7 MAY 2007
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR
This is an application for extension of time to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court. The judgment was given on 8 February 2007.
The application was lodged a few days out of time, on 7 March 2007. The applicant has given an explanation for the delay and if it were not futile to grant the application, I would grant it.
However, the decision of the learned Federal Magistrate recounts that the applicant approached the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) nearly four years after the notification of the applicant’s then authorised representative and, in consequence, the deemed notification of the applicant personally. The applicant apparently says that the migration agent did not tell him of the delegate’s refusal and so he could not approach the Tribunal in a timely way.
Regrettably, at least in this Court and in the Federal Magistrates Court, that would not assist him and the learned Magistrate, it seems to me, was unarguably correct in rejecting the application.
The decision sought to be appealed against is not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of leave to warrant an appeal, and it would be futile to extend the time to file and service the notice of appeal. I refuse to do so.
The application will be dismissed with costs of $1200.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick. Associate:
Dated: 16 May 2007
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 7 May 2007 Date of Judgment: 7 May 2007
- AGLC
- SZJBQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 717
- Case
- [2007] FCA 717
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the decision to cancel the applicant's visa was unreasonable. The court was required to consider the principles of administrative law, including whether the decision was within the statutory authority of the Minister, whether it was made in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions, and whether it was supported by relevant considerations and free from irrelevant ones. The court also had to determine whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made it, considering the evidence before the Minister.
The court found that the Minister's decision was well within the statutory authority granted by the Migration Act. The court examined the evidence and concluded that it was sufficient to support the Minister's decision. The court held that the decision was not tainted by any procedural unfairness or irrelevant considerations. The court also found that the decision was not so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made it, given the evidence before the Minister. The court rejected the applicant's argument that the decision was unreasonable and dismissed the application. The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, fixed at $1200.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal fixed at the sum of $1200.
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: MADGWICK J
Full text does not contain this section.