Federal Court of Australia
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZIZH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 165
MIGRATION - application for leave to appeal from interlocutory decision of Federal Magistrate ? whether decision attendant with sufficient doubt ? whether substantial injustice if leave refused Hall v Nominal Defendant (1966) 117 CLR 423 referred to Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 referred to SZIZH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2308 OF 2006
KENNY J
22 FEBRUARY 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2308 OF 2006
ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM AN INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZIZH
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: KENNY J DATE OF ORDER: 22 FEBRUARY 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The title of the first respondent be amended to ?Minister for Immigration and Citizenship?. 2. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed. 3. The applicant pay the first respondent?s costs of this application fixed in the amount of $1,000. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2308 OF 2006
ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM AN INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZIZH
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: KENNY J
DATE: 22 FEBRUARY 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction 1 This is an application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court. The history of the matter is as follows. 2 The applicant arrived in Australia on 16 June 2005. On 13 December 2005, he lodged an application for a protection visa with the first respondent?s Department. On 6 March 2006, a delegate of the first respondent refused to grant him a protection visa. On 23 March 2006, the applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal for review of the delegate?s decision. On 11 April 2006, the Tribunal sent a letter inviting him to attend a hearing. On 9 May 2006, the Tribunal received a ?Response to Hearing Invitation? form indicating that the applicant did not want to attend the hearing. The Tribunal telephoned the applicant on 10 May 2006 to confirm that he did not want to attend the hearing. On 6 June 2006 the Tribunal handed down its decision affirming the delegate?s decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. On 28 June 2006, the applicant filed an application in the Federal Magistrates Court seeking judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal. On 17 October 2006, the matter was listed for a hearing to show cause. The Federal Magistrate dismissed the application under Rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) on the basis that he was not satisfied that the application raised an arguable case for the relief claimed. On 23 November 2006, the applicant filed his application for leave to appeal from this judgment.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate