Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZKCL v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 969
Federal Magistrate Court Rules 2001, rule 44.13 SZKCL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD374 OF 2007
EMMETT J
8 MAY 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD374 OF 2007
BETWEEN: SZKCL
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER: 8 MAY 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The Application be dismissed. 2. The Applicant pay the First Respondent's Costs in the sum of $800. 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 NSD374 OF 2007
BETWEEN: SZKCL
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: EMMETT J
DATE: 8 MAY 2007
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing an application for judicial review on the basis that the application disclosed no arguable case. The application was brought in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent not to grant a Protection (Class XA) visa to the applicant. 2 The applicant is a citizen of the Peoples Republic of China who arrived in Australia on 24 July 2006. She applied for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) on 25 August 2006. The Minister's delegate decided to refuse to grant a visa on 2 September 2006 and the applicant applied to the Tribunal on 5 October 2006 for review of the delegate's decision. 3 The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa on 29 November 2006. On 30 January 2007 the applicant commenced a proceeding in the Federal Magistrates Court seeking constitutional writ relief in respect of the Tribunal's decision. The grounds were uninformative and were in the following terms: "(1) The decision involved an error of law in that there was no evidence or other materials to justify the making of the decision.
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