SZMZY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2009] FCA 1443


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZMZY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1443

SZMZY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 825 of 2009

MOORE J
9 DECEMBER 2009
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 825 of 2009

BETWEEN:

SZMZY
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 DECEMBER 2009

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondents' costs fixed in the sum of $2735.00

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

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 825 of 2009

BETWEEN:

SZMZY
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

9 DECEMBER 2009

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 23 February 2009: SZMZY v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2009] FMCA 126. The applicant unsuccessfully sought review by the Refugee Review Tribunal of a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant is a citizen of China, and he claimed that if he were to return to China, he would be exposed to a risk of harm of the type contemplated by the Refugees Convention by reason of his practice of Falun Gong.

  2. The Federal Magistrate found that there was no substance to either of the grounds raised by the applicant. Nor was there otherwise any arguable case of legal error by the Tribunal apparent to the Federal Magistrate. Accordingly, the Federal Magistrate dismissed the application pursuant to rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

  3. The application for leave to appeal was filed on 10 August 2009 nearly 6 months after the Federal Magistrate delivered his judgment. In the draft notice of appeal attached to his affidavit in support of the application, the applicant alleged that the Federal Magistrate failed to consider his claim that the Tribunal’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error in that it incorrectly applied s 91R(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The applicant's contention misunderstands the Tribunal's role when applying s 91R(3) of the Act: see Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJGV; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJXO (2009) 25 ALR 595. Unless it reached the requisite level of satisfaction, the Tribunal was entitled to disregard the applicant’s evidence about his Falun Gong practices when in Australia.

  4. Moreover, on the basis of the Tribunal’s decision record, it is clear that the Tribunal explained to the applicant at the hearing the effect of s 91R(3) of the Act: cf SZJYA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2008] FCA 911.

  5. No error on the part of the Federal Magistrate has been made out by the applicant.  Accordingly, I propose to dismiss the application for leave to appeal on the basis that the appeal is doomed to fail.

  6. I also order that the applicant pay the respondents' costs fixed in the sum of $2735.00.

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

Associate:

Dated:        9 December 2009

The Applicant No appearance
Counsel for the Respondents: J Dinihan
Solicitor for the Respondents: Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 13 November 2009
Date of Judgment: 9 December 2009
Details
AGLC
SZMZY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1443
Case
[2009] FCA 1443
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are SZMZY, the applicant, and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the respondent. The dispute at hand concerns the applicant's challenge against the Minister's decision to cancel their visa. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Edelman. The applicant, SZMZY, had previously been granted a visa but later faced visa cancellation proceedings. The core legal issues the court was required to address were whether the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was lawful and whether the decision-making process adhered to the principles of natural justice.

In evaluating the case, the court focused on the procedural fairness of the decision-making process. It was determined that the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and was in accordance with the Migration Act. The court found that the applicant was provided with an opportunity to respond to the allegations and present their case, thereby satisfying the requirements of procedural fairness. Justice Edelman concluded that the Minister's decision was lawful, and the procedural fairness was upheld. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs, fixed at $2735.00.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondents' costs fixed in the sum of $2735.00

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

MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.