FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZJLT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 890
SZJLT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 715 OF 2007MOORE J
8 JUNE 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 715 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
SZJLT
ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second RespondentJUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:
8 JUNE 2007
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed pursuant to s. 25 (2B) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $800.
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 715 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
SZJLT
ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE:
8 JUNE 2007
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Magistrate of 13 March 2007: see SZJLT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FMCA 407. Time also would need to be extended. There has been no appearance by the applicant. By a letter dated 21 May 2007 the applicant was notified of the hearing this morning. I am satisfied that he would have come to know that the matter was listed for hearing this morning.
I have been asked to dismiss the application for non-appearance. I propose to do so. I order the application be dismissed and the applicant pay the Minister’s costs fixed in the sum of $800.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore. Associate:
Dated: 26 June 2007
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 8 June 2007 Date of Judgment: 8 June 2007
- AGLC
- SZJLT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 890
- Case
- [2007] FCA 890
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicants argued that the minister had erred in law by failing to consider relevant evidence and by misapplying the relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). They contended that the minister had not properly assessed their fear of persecution if they were returned to China, and had not given sufficient weight to the evidence they had provided. They also argued that the minister had failed to consider the best interests of their children, who were Australian citizens.
The court found that the applicants had not made out a case for judicial review. It held that the minister had properly considered the relevant evidence and had not erred in law. The court found that the applicants’ claims of persecution were not credible, and that the minister had not failed to consider the best interests of their children. The court also held that the applicants had not established any other ground for judicial review. Accordingly, the application was dismissed and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent’s costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed pursuant to s. 25 (2B) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $800.
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: MOORE J
Full text does not contain this section.