FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZQIJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 429
Citation: SZQIJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 429 Appeal from: SZQIJ & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor [2012] FMCA 63 Parties: SZQIJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL File number: NSD 319 of 2012 Judge: ROBERTSON J Date of judgment: 1 May 2012 Catchwords: MIGRATION – dismissal pursuant to r 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011. Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 r 36.75(1)(a)(i) Date of hearing: 1 May 2012 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 4 Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant did not appear Solicitor for the First Respondent Ms J Reardon of Minter Ellison Lawyers Counsel for the Second Respondent The Second Respondent did not appear
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 319 of 2012
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZQIJ
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
ROBERTSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
1 MAY 2012
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed pursuant to r 36.75(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 319 of 2012
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZQIJ
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
ROBERTSON J
DATE:
1 MAY 2012
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
When this appeal was called on for hearing this morning at 10.30 am, having allowed 15 minutes from the time fixed for the hearing of the appeal at 10.15 am, there was no appearance by the appellant.
I have admitted into evidence two pieces of correspondence: a letter dated 30 March 2012 from the Court to the appellant and a letter from the first respondent’s solicitors to the appellant dated 23 April 2012, each of which notifies the appellant that the matter is listed for hearing today at 10.15 am. I also asked the Court Officer, Mr Walker, whether he had made any enquiries as to the appearance of the appellant. Because there was a question that an earlier notice to the parties had specified a court on level 21, Mr Walker told me that he had been to level 21 at 10.15 am and called the matter there and also at 10.30 am. Also, the matter was called at level 19 at 10.30 am. There was no appearance.
The first respondent moved for an order under the Federal Court Rules 2011 Part 36 rule 36.75(1)(a) which provides:
(1) If a party is absent when an appeal is called on for hearing, the opposing party may apply to the Court for an order that:
(a) if the absent party is the appellant:
(i) the appeal be dismissed
…In the circumstances of the present case, which I have outlined, in my view that is an appropriate order to be made. I order that the appeal be dismissed and that the appellant pay the first respondent’s costs.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Robertson. Associate:
Dated: 1 May 2012
- AGLC
- SZQIJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 429
- Case
- [2012] FCA 429
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining several legal issues. The primary issue was whether the decision to cancel the appellant's visa was flawed due to procedural irregularities, particularly whether the appellant was given an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations of security concerns. The court also had to consider whether the Minister’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence and whether there were any errors in the application of the relevant legislative provisions.
The court held that the decision to cancel the visa was lawful. It found that the appellant had been afforded a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations, despite the sensitive nature of the information involved. The court was satisfied that the Minister's decision was based on a reasonable assessment of the information provided by ASIO and was therefore not flawed. The court further determined that the procedural fairness requirements were met, and there was no error in the application of the legislative provisions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent. The court's decision was made under rule 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, which allows for the dismissal of an appeal if it is frivolous or vexatious.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed pursuant to r 36.75(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011
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.