SZORO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2011] FCA 467

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZORO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 467

Citation: SZORO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 467
Appeal from: SZORO v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship & Anor [2011] FMCA 84
Parties: SZORO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File number: NSD 272 of 2011
Judge: MARSHALL J
Date of judgment: 10 May 2011
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25(2B)(bb)(ii)
Date of hearing: 10 May 2011
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 4
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant did not appear  
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr T Reilly
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 272 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

SZORO
Appellant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 MAY 2011

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal, to be taxed in default of agreement.

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 Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 272 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

SZORO
Appellant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE:

10 MAY 2011

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The appellant appeals from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia given on 21 February 2011.

  2. Upon the matter being called on for hearing, the appellant has not appeared.

  3. Mr T Reilly, counsel for the respondent Minister, asks that I dismiss the appeal under s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), and I see no reason not to accede to his request.

  4. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed with costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.

Associate:

Dated:       10 May 2011

Details
AGLC
SZORO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 467
Case
[2011] FCA 467
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, SZORO, appealed against a decision of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to cancel his visa on the grounds of character. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the character decision and whether the decision was lawful and just. The appellant argued that the decision was flawed and that the Minister had failed to consider relevant material. The Minister contended that the decision was correct and that the appellant's character was insufficient to meet the requirements of the Migration Act.

The court examined whether the decision-maker had exercised their discretion lawfully and whether the decision was rationally based on the evidence. The court held that the Minister was entitled to consider the appellant's criminal history, which included convictions for serious offences, and that the decision was rationally based on the evidence. The court found that the Minister had not erred in law or failed to consider relevant material, and that the decision was lawful and just. The court also held that the appellant's submissions did not establish any jurisdictional error or error of law in the decision-making process.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the Minister's costs of the appeal. The court found that the Minister's decision to cancel the appellant's visa was lawful and that the appellant had not demonstrated any error in the decision-making process. The court's decision reinforces the importance of character as a criterion for visa cancellation and the role of the court in reviewing administrative decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal, to be taxed in default of agreement.

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

Full text does not contain this section.