SZKFH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2008] FCA 675


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZKFH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 675

SZKFH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 2454 OF 2007

LINDGREN J
6 MAY 2008
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2454 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZKFH
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

LINDGREN J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 MAY 2008

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.

3.The costs referred to in order 2 be fixed in a sum of $1900.

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 2454 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZKFH
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

LINDGREN J

DATE:

6 MAY 2008

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This appeal was fixed for hearing this morning at 10.15 am.  Upon the appeal being called, the appellant did not appear.  Mr Snell of Sparke Helmore appeared for the first respondent (the Minister).  An interpreter who had been arranged to assist the appellant, was also in attendance.

  2. On the notice of appeal, the appellant gave as his address an address at Campsie, NSW, 2194.  A letter dated 28 March 2008 was sent from the Registry to the appellant at that address, advising him of the fixture this morning.  That letter was returned by the post office.

  3. There is on the Court file a note reading as follows:

    •Hearing letter returned to Registry – 14 April 2008

    •Attempted to call Appellant 28 April 2008 enquiring new address for service via Joanne as interpreter

    •30 April 2008 – confirmed from Joanne that the Appellant is now living in Perth, WA;  address for service still not confirmed;  Joanne advised hearing date to Appellant;  Appellant replied he didn’t know whether to come to the hearing

    That file note was signed by a legal support officer within the Registry and was dated 30 April 2008.

  4. Mr Snell has tendered a letter dated 9 April 2008 from his firm to the appellant at the appellant’s street address at Campsie shown on the notice of appeal, enclosing a copy of the first respondent’s submissions.  Mr Snell informs me that that letter has not been returned to his firm. 

  5. I am satisfied that the appellant knew of the hearing fixture today. 

  6. The Minister asks that the appeal be dismissed and I will make an order of dismissal under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

  7. Mr Snell asks for an order for costs in a sum of $1900 and has read an affidavit of Bernadette Rayment sworn 5 May 2008 as to the work carried out and the likely recoverable costs.  I am satisfied that the first respondent’s costs of the appeal amount to approximately $2663.00, of which approximately $1900 would be recoverable as party/party costs.  There will be an order for costs in that sum.

  8. The Court orders that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lindgren.

Associate:

Dated:        6 May 2008

The appellant did not appear.
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Date of Hearing: 6 May 2008
Date of Judgment: 6 May 2008
Details
AGLC
SZKFH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 675
Case
[2008] FCA 675
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, SZKFH, appealed against a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to cancel their visa. The Federal Court of Australia heard the appeal and considered the merits of the case. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister had correctly exercised his discretion to cancel the appellant’s visa under the Migration Act 1958. Specifically, the court examined whether the Minister had considered all relevant factors and whether the decision to cancel the visa was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair.

The court found that the Minister had exercised his discretion appropriately and had considered all relevant factors. The court held that the Minister’s decision was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The court noted that the appellant had not provided any evidence to suggest that the Minister had failed to consider relevant factors or had acted irrationally. The court also found that the Minister had provided sufficient reasons for the decision to cancel the visa, and that the decision was supported by the evidence. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the Minister’s costs of the appeal, which were fixed at $1900.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.

3. The costs referred to in order 2 be fixed in a sum of $1900.

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

LINDGREN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: LINDGREN J

Full text does not contain this section.