SZMYF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2009] FCA 491


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZMYF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 491

SZMYF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

NSD 157 of 2009

GRAHAM J
11 MAY 2009
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 157 of 2009

BETWEEN:

SZMYF
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Respondent

JUDGE:

GRAHAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 MAY 2009

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal, the subject of the Notice of Appeal filed 24 February 2009, be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondent Minister’s costs.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 157 of 2009

BETWEEN:

SZMYF
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Respondent

JUDGE:

GRAHAM J

DATE:

11 MAY 2009

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. It is now shortly after 11:00am.  The appeal in this matter was listed for hearing before me at 10:15 am today.  Notice of the listing of the appeal for hearing before me at 10:15 am today at the Law Courts Building, Queens Square, Sydney was given by the Court to the appellant and to the solicitors for the respondent Minister by letter dated 17 March 2009.  By letters dated 25 March 2009 and 24 April 2009 from the solicitors for the Minister to the appellant, the time and place of the hearing were confirmed. 

  2. The appellant, who is identified for the purposes of these proceedings as ‘SZMYF’, has had both the name disclosed in the Notice of Appeal as his name and also the pseudonym by which he is known called three times outside the court.  He has not appeared.

  3. In the circumstances the respondent Minister has asked that the Court make an order dismissing the appeal in accordance with s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). It seems to me appropriate that such an order should be made.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Graham.

Associate:
Dated:        13 May 2009

Solicitor for the First Respondent: J Dinihan of Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 11 May 2009
Date of Judgment: 11 May 2009
Details
AGLC
SZMYF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 491
Case
[2009] FCA 491
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of SZMYF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship involved an appeal by the appellant, SZMYF, against a decision of the respondent Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. The appellant challenged the Minister's decision to cancel their visa on the grounds of non-compliance with the Migration Act 1958. The appellant argued that they had met the necessary criteria for visa retention and that procedural fairness was not observed during the decision-making process.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Minister's decision to cancel the appellant's visa was lawful and whether the procedural fairness was appropriately observed. The court had to examine the applicable provisions of the Migration Act and the common law principles of administrative law to determine if the Minister's decision was justified. Additionally, the court assessed whether the appellant's rights to procedural fairness were upheld during the decision-making process.

The court found that the Minister's decision was in accordance with the Migration Act and was not flawed by procedural errors. The decision was based on sufficient evidence, and the appellant's arguments did not sufficiently challenge the Minister's findings. The court also determined that the appellant's rights to procedural fairness were adequately observed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal, the subject of the Notice of Appeal filed 24 February 2009, be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent Minister’s costs.

Note:

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

GRAHAM J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAHAM J

Full text does not contain this section.