Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZGWH v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 543
SZGWH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2076 OF 2006
BENNETT J
9 MARCH 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2076 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZGWH
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: BENNETT J DATE OF ORDER: 9 MARCH 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The name of the first respondent be amended to the 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'. 2. The appeal be dismissed. 3. The appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs. 4. Leave is granted to the first respondent to file and serve any evidence in support of an application for fixed costs within the next seven days. 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 2076 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZGWH
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: BENNETT J
DATE: 9 MARCH 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of Jarrett FM where his Honour dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of the Delegate of the first respondent to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa (SZGWH v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 1538). 2 There is no dispute as to the fact that, as set out in the Tribunal's reasons, the Tribunal wrote to the appellant on 10 May 2005 advising him that it had considered all the material before it in relation to his application but was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone ('the letter'). In the letter, the Tribunal invited the appellant to give oral evidence and present arguments at a hearing on 23 June 2005 at the time and place specified. The letter also advised the appellant that if he did not attend the hearing and a postponement was not granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on his case without further notice. No response was received to the letter and it was not returned. The Tribunal recorded that it did not have a telephone number for the appellant. The appellant did not appear before the Tribunal on the day and at the time and place at which he was scheduled to appear. Pursuant to s 426A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)('the Act') the Tribunal made its decision without taking further action to enable the appellant to appear before it.
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