SZRCJ v Minister for Immigration - [2012] FMCA 605

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZRCJ & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2012] FMCA 605

MIGRATION – RRT decision – Refugee claims of Indonesian Chinese Christian businessman – adverse findings by Tribunal – not materially irrational nor unsupported by evidence – no material error of law – extension of time for five months ordered – application for judicial review dismissed.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), Sch.1 Part 3
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36(2), 91R, 91R(1), 91R(1)(a), 91R(1)(b), 91R(2), 417, 477(1), 477(2), 477(2)(b)

First Applicant:

SZRCJ

Second Applicant:

SZRCK

Third Applicant:

SZRCL

Fourth Applicant:

SZRCM

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 196 of 2012

Judgment of:

Smith FM

Hearing date:

4 July 2012

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

24 July 2012

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicants:

Mr J R Young

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Mr O Jones

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Clayton Utz

ORDERS

The time for making the application provided by s.477(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is extended up to and including 30 January 2012.
The application is dismissed.
The first and second applicants must pay the first respondent’s costs in the amount of $6,471.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 196 of 2012

SZRCJ

First Applicant

SZRCK

Second Applicant

SZRCL

Third Applicant

SZRCM

Fourth Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicants are an Indonesian family, who arrived in Australia on visitors’ visas in April 2010. On 6 August 2010 a migration agent lodged applications for protection visas on their behalf. Only the applicant father made claims to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read SZRCJ v Minister for Immigration and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] FMCA 605
Decision Date: 24 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of SZRCJ v Minister for Immigration concerned an application to extend the time for making an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration. The applicants, SZRCJ, sought an extension of time for making an application for judicial review under section 477(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The legal issues the court was required to decide involved the interpretation of section 477(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the circumstances in which an extension of time for making an application for judicial review may be granted. The court needed to determine whether the applicants had provided a sufficient explanation for the delay in making the application and whether there were any exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time.

The court considered the statutory framework and the relevant authorities on the matter of time limits for judicial review applications. The court held that the statutory language of section 477(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) does not explicitly provide for extensions of time, and that the court should be slow to grant extensions of time in the absence of a clear statutory provision. The court found that the applicants had not provided a sufficient explanation for the delay in making the application and that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered that the applicants pay the Minister for Immigration's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The time for making the application provided by s.477(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is extended up to and including 30 January 2012.

The application is dismissed.

The first and second applicants must pay the first respondent’s costs in the amount of $6,471.

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.