SZUIH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2)

Case [2015] FCA 1036

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZUIH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2)

[2015] FCA 1036

Citation: SZUIH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2015] FCA 1036
Appeal from: Application for extension of time and leave to appeal: SZUIH v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2015] FCCA 1047
Parties: SZUIH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION and ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
File number: NSD 528 of 2015
Judge: NICHOLAS J
Date of judgment: 16 September 2015
Date of hearing: 16 September 2015
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 5
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant did not appear
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr M Glavac of Clayton Utz
Counsel for the Second Respondent: The second respondent submitted save as to costs

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 528 of 2015
BETWEEN:

SZUIH
Applicant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

NICHOLAS J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 SEPTEMBER 2015

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s interlocutory application dated 7 September 2015 be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the said application in the amount of $1,000.

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 528 of 2015
BETWEEN:

SZUIH
Applicant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

NICHOLAS J

DATE:

16 SEPTEMBER 2015

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from Transcript)

  1. Before me is an interlocutory application filed by the applicant on 7 September 2015, seeking an order that the applicant’s application dated 24 April 2015 be reinstated.  That application (“the dismissed application”) was dismissed by me on 10 August 2015, following the applicant’s failure to appear at the hearing: SZUIH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 829.

  2. The dismissed application sought an application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against a judgment of Judge Manousaridis of the Federal Circuit Court whereby his Honour dismissed an application brought by the applicant to reinstate a proceeding that had previously been brought by him in that Court and which had been dismissed by his Honour on account of the applicant’s non-appearance at the hearing. 

  3. In my reasons of 10 August 2015, I concluded that there was no reason to think that Judge Manousaridis had erred in dealing with the application for reinstatement then before him. 

  4. At the hearing of the present application (for reinstatement of the dismissed application) there was, yet again, no appearance by the applicant.  In the circumstances, it is clear that the interlocutory application filed by him on 7 September 2015 must be dismissed with costs.  I will fix the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $1,000.

  5. Orders accordingly. 

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Nicholas.

Associate:       

Dated:       22 September 2015

Details
AGLC
SZUIH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2015] FCA 1036
Case
[2015] FCA 1036
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, SZUIH, sought to challenge a decision of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to cancel their visa. This matter was before the Federal Court of Australia, specifically in the form of an interlocutory application seeking an injunction to prevent the Minister from implementing the decision to cancel the visa. The Minister opposed the application on the grounds that it lacked merit and was an abuse of the court process.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of the case to warrant the grant of an injunction. The court considered the merits of the visa cancellation decision, the urgency of the matter, and whether an injunction would cause disproportionate harm to the Minister or the public interest. The applicant argued that the visa cancellation was unjust and that there were substantial grounds for the injunction, given the potential for irreparable harm if the cancellation was carried out. The Minister contended that the applicant had not shown a likelihood of success and that the application was an abuse of process.

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of the case to warrant the grant of an injunction. The court noted that the visa cancellation decision was based on serious allegations and that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the findings of the Minister. Additionally, the court considered that granting the injunction would cause disproportionate harm to the Minister and the public interest, as it would interfere with the proper administration of the Migration Act 1958. Consequently, the court dismissed the interlocutory application and ordered the applicant to pay the Minister's costs in the amount of $1,000.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s interlocutory application dated 7 September 2015 be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the said application in the amount of $1,000.

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.