FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZNID v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 939
SZNID v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 482 of 2009
GRAHAM J
21 AUGUST 2009
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 482 of 2009
BETWEEN: SZNID
AppellantAND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
GRAHAM J
DATE OF ORDER:
21 AUGUST 2009
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appellant’s appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the first respondent’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
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 482 of 2009
BETWEEN: SZNID
AppellantAND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
GRAHAM J
DATE:
21 AUGUST 2009
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 27 May 2009 a Notice of Appeal was filed in this Court by the appellant who has been identified by the pseudonym ‘SZNID’.
On 22 June 2009 a letter was apparently sent by the Court to the appellant at the address given at the foot of his Notice of Appeal filed 27 May 2009, which was the same address as that included in a Notice of Change of Address forwarded to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship which reached the Department on 15 January 2009. The letter from the Court to the appellant notified him of the fact that his appeal would be heard today at 10:15am.
On 25 June 2009 the solicitor for the respondent Minister forwarded a copy of the Appeal Book to the appellant at the same address; again notifying him that the matter had been listed for hearing before the Court at 10:15am today and that the hearing would take place in the courtroom in which I am presently sitting.
A further letter was sent to the appellant on 18 August 2009 enclosing a copy of the respondent Minister’s submissions, once again reminding him of the fact that the hearing of his matter would take place before the Court in this courtroom at 10:15am today.
The name of the appellant and the pseudonym by which he is known have each been called outside the court three times and he has failed to appear. It is now 10:36am.
In the circumstances the solicitor for the first respondent has asked the Court to dismiss the appeal in accordance with s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and it seems to be appropriate that I should do so.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Graham. Associate:
Dated: 21 August 2009
The Appellant did not appear.
Solicitor for the First Respondent: L B Buchanan of Australian Government Solicitor The Second Respondent filed a submitting appearance.
Date of Hearing: 21 August 2009 Date of Judgment: 21 August 2009
- AGLC
- SZNID v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 939
- Case
- [2009] FCA 939
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the Minister's decision was lawful and whether the appellant's visa cancellation was justified. The court also had to consider whether the Minister properly exercised his discretion and whether there were any errors in the application of relevant laws or principles. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate whether the appellant's circumstances warranted a departure from the usual visa cancellation process.
The court found that the Minister's decision to cancel the appellant’s visa was within the legal framework and was not unreasonable. The Minister had correctly identified the breaches of visa conditions and had considered the relevant factors, including the appellant's personal circumstances. The court was satisfied that the Minister's decision was made in accordance with the law and was not tainted by any procedural unfairness or error. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the Minister's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appellant’s appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the first respondent’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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: GRAHAM J
Full text does not contain this section.