SZEMJ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 1848

SZEMJ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 1848

Leave to appeal was refused because the application had no merit: the applicant did not satisfactorily explain her non-appearance or the seven month and two year delays, and she failed to identify any arguable basis on which the Tribunal's decision was affected by jurisdictional error, so there was no prospect of success on appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal in Migration Judicial Review Proceedings Concerning a Protection Visa Decision / Leave to Appeal From Dismissal by the Federal Magistrates Court of an Application to Set Aside Earlier Dismissal for Non Appearance
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'natural Justice and Procedural Fairness' 'summary Dismissal' 'reinstatement of Proceedings' 'delay' 'ministerial Intervention Under S 417 of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'leave to Appeal']
['migration' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'natural Justice and Procedural Fairness' 'summary Dismissal' 'reinstatement of Proceedings' 'delay' 'ministerial Intervention Under S 417 of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'leave to Appeal']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal in Migration Judicial Review Proceedings Concerning a Protection Visa Decision / Leave to Appeal From Dismissal by the Federal Magistrates Court of an Application to Set Aside Earlier Dismissal for Non Appearance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the Federal Magistrates Court's refusal to reinstate the applicant's judicial review proceedings." 'Whether the applicant satisfactorily explained her failure to appear at the summary dismissal hearing on 4 February 2005.' 'Whether reinstatement of the original judicial review application would have utility because the Tribunal decision was arguably affected by jurisdictional error.' "Whether the applicant's delays in commencing Federal Magistrates Court proceedings and seeking reinstatement warranted refusal of relief."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the application had no merit: the applicant did not satisfactorily explain her non-appearance or the seven month and two year delays, and she failed to identify any arguable basis on which the Tribunal's decision was affected by jurisdictional error, so there was no prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' "The applicant to pay the first respondent's costs of the application fixed at $1,500."]