SZJIJ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship

Case [2008] FCA 180


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJIJ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 180

SZJIJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 2258 OF 2007

JACOBSON J
27 FEBRUARY 2008
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2258 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

SZJIJ
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

Jacobson

DATE OF ORDER:

27 February 2008

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The appeal be dismissed.

2.   The appellant is to pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the amount of $2,660.00.

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 2258 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

SZJIJ
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

Jacobson

DATE:

27 February 2008

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an appeal from a decision of Lloyd-Jones FM delivered on 26 October 2007.  His Honour dismissed an application for a review of a decision of the Refuge Review Tribunal dated 31 July 2006.  The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate not to grant the appellant a protection visa. 

  2. The appellant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh by reason of his political opinion as a member of an extreme right-wing party known as the Freedom Party.  The grounds of appeal were essentially in the same terms as the grounds of review on which the appellant was unsuccessful before the Federal Magistrate.

  3. When the matter was called on for hearing at 2.15pm there was no appearance by the appellant.  I stood the matter down in case the appellant was unavoidably detained.  It is now nearly 2.30pm and there is still no appearance. 

  4. Counsel for the Minister asked me to exercise my powers under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) by reason of the appellant’s failure to appear this afternoon.

  5. I am satisfied that the appellant was informed of the date and time of the hearing.  In those circumstances I consider that I should exercise my powers under the Act to dismiss the appeal. 

  6. I will therefore order that the appeal be dismissed, with costs.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson.

Associate:

Dated:             3 March 2008

The Appellant did not appear.
Counsel for the First Respondent: P Silver
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 27 February 2008
Date of Judgment: 27 February 2008
Details
AGLC
SZJIJ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 180
Case
[2008] FCA 180
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved SZJIJ, the appellant, and the Minister for Immigration & Citizenship, the first respondent. The appellant sought to challenge the Minister's decision to revoke their visa, leading to the appellant's deportation from Australia. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the appellant's appeal against the decision was contested.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to revoke the appellant's visa was lawful and justified under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Minister correctly applied the relevant provisions of the Act and if the decision was supported by appropriate evidence. The court also considered whether the Minister's decision was procedurally fair and if the appellant's rights were adequately protected.

The court held that the Minister's decision was both lawful and procedurally fair. The Minister had correctly applied the provisions of the Migration Act and the decision was supported by sufficient evidence. The court found no errors in the Minister's assessment of the case and concluded that the appellant's rights were properly considered. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs in the amount of $2,660.00.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant is to pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the amount of $2,660.00.

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

JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.