SZVEY v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection

The applicant, SZVEY, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Federal Court, which had dismissed an application for review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration & Border Protection to cancel a visa on the grounds of character. The applicant, a citizen of Hungary, had been in Australia on a subclass 457 visa which had since been cancelled. The visa had been cancelled on the basis that the applicant's conduct demonstrated that he did not meet the character requirement for the visa. The applicant sought leave to appeal on the grounds that the primary judge had erred in finding that the Minister was not required to consider the possibility of an alternative visa, and that the decision-maker had failed to properly consider the applicant's personal circumstances.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Minister was required to consider the possibility of an alternative visa before cancelling the applicant's visa, and whether the decision-maker had failed to properly consider the applicant's personal circumstances. The court found that the Minister was not required to consider the possibility of an alternative visa before cancelling the visa, and that the decision-maker had properly considered the applicant's personal circumstances. The court held that the Minister was not required to consider the possibility of an alternative visa because the applicant had not made an application for such a visa, and the court found that the decision-maker had properly considered the applicant's personal circumstances in reaching a decision that the visa should be cancelled.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The court held that the decision of the Minister was not affected by any error of law, and that the appeal did not raise a question of law of general public importance. The court further held that the decision was not so unfair that the Court ought to intervene. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, and no appeal was granted. The orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed.