SZJXQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2007] FCA 1688


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJXQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1688

SZJXQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1186 OF 2007

COWDROY J
7 NOVEMBER 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1186 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZJXQ
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

COWDROY J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 NOVEMBER 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as the Second Respondent.

2.The appeal be dismissed pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) for the failure of the Appellant to attend the hearing.

3.The Appellant pay the costs of the First Respondent fixed in the sum of $3000 pursuant to Order 62 Rule 4(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth).

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 1186 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZJXQ
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

COWDROY J

DATE:

7 NOVEMBER 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The appellant did not appear at the hearing today and at 10.25 am the name of the appellant was called three times outside the Court, but she did not appear.

  2. The Minister seeks an order to have the proceedings dismissed.

  3. Notification of the hearing was provided on 11 October 2007 by letter sent to the appellant at her nominated address for service in the Notice of Appeal. The appeal book was also sent to the appellant under cover of such letter. Thereafter the Minister again wrote the appellant on 13 October 2007 reminding the appellant of the date, time and place of the hearing and enclosing a copy of the Minister’s submissions.

  4. There is no evidence of any communication received in response to either letter and, so far as the Court is aware, there has been no communication to the Court advising that the appellant did not wish to pursue her appeal or would otherwise be unavailable to attend at Court this morning. For these reasons the application of the Minister will be granted.

  5. In making such order the Court noted that it has examined the decision appealed from, namely the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court dated 6 June 2007. The Court can discern no error in that decision. The Court has also read the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal from which the appellant sought review in the Federal Magistrates Court. The Court considers that no error is disclosed in that decision either. Accordingly the Court is satisfied that the summary dismissal of the proceedings will cause no injustice to the appellant.

  6. The Court makes that orders as above.

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

Associate:

Dated:        7 November 2007

Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondent: M. Izzo
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 7 November 2007
Date of Judgment: 7 November 2007
Details
AGLC
SZJXQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1688
Case
[2007] FCA 1688
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SZJXQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, where the Appellant contested the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship's decision to cancel their visa. The dispute centred on the legal validity and procedural fairness of the decision-making process undertaken by the Minister. The Appellant, who was the subject of the visa cancellation, sought judicial review of the decision on the grounds that it was unreasonable, lacked procedural fairness, and failed to take into account relevant considerations.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the decision was legally sound and if it adhered to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Minister's decision was made in accordance with the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and whether it was open to the Minister to make such a decision based on the evidence presented. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Appellant was given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against them.

In its decision, the court held that the Appellant failed to attend the hearing, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal under section 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. The court found that the Appellant's absence constituted a failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the court and, as such, the appeal could not proceed. Furthermore, the court determined that the Minister's decision was legally valid and that the Appellant had been afforded procedural fairness. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered the Appellant to pay the costs of the First Respondent in the sum of $3000. The court also ordered that the Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as the Second Respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as the Second Respondent.

2. The appeal be dismissed pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) for the failure of the Appellant to attend the hearing.

3. The Appellant pay the costs of the First Respondent fixed in the sum of $3000 pursuant to Order 62 Rule 4(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth).

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

COWDROY J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: COWDROY J

Full text does not contain this section.