SZSXT v Minister for Immigration

This assignment examines the case of SZSXT v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, focusing on the applicant's failed asylum claim and subsequent legal challenges. It analyzes jurisdictional errors made by the court, procedural flaws in the decision-making process, and the impact of these issues on administrative law principles. The assignment highlights the importance of judicial review in ensuring fairness and accountability within government decision-making.

Running head: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Administrative Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Facts of the Case:
In SZSXT v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection the applicant is SZSXT
whereas the respondents to the case are the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and
the Judges of the Federal Justice Court of Australia. The applicant cannot read, write or speak in
English and depends upon the interpreter in order to communicate with the government. The
applicant on April 12 arrived as Christmas Island from Iraq as an asylum seeker and thereafter on
July 2012, he applied for protection visa. However his application for such visa was
unsuccessful. The applicant in order to seek review of the decision under the Tribunal was
represented by Mr Ford from Playfair Visa and Migration Services however such review was
also unsuccessful. In May 2013, his friends recommended him to Mr Sarkis in order to resolve
the issue. Mr Sarkis misrepresented himself as an expert and ensured that he will help the
applicant in getting a permanent visa on signing certain documents. On 17th December 2013, an
application was filed by the applicant that contained both originating and interlocutory
applications. Such applications were presented before the Federal Court of Justice in order to
seek relief on various matters including the confinement of the Minister from abolishing the
applicant from Australia. However the originating application was pending before the Federal
Circuit Court which was to seek judicial review of a decision before the Court. The Federal
Circuit Court did not extend the time period in order to grant permission to the applicant in
seeking judicial review of a previous decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal.
Legal Issues:
After proper evaluation of the case study the issues has been observed can be
emphasized. The applicant stated that a jurisdictional error was committed by the Judge of

2ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Federal Circuit Court by rejecting an order to grant extension of time. The Court failed to
provide attention to the jurisdictional error made by the Tribunal by failing to comply with the
2012 UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines on the concern of relocating within Iran. The Federal
Circuit Court has considered the immaterial factors and therefore directed the applicant to seek
help from the Minister rather than the Court. Mr. Sarkis committed a fraud on the Court while
conducting the application of the applicant.
Legal principles:
In the present case study it can be observed that the Federal Justice Court while
evaluating the issues involved in the case made its decision by depending on three different
legislations- Section 20(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), Section 39B of the
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and Sections 476 and 477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The
provisions of Section 20(1A) states that in case of matters where it was determined by the Chief
Justice that such matter is of utmost importance then in such cases it is applicable it can be heard
by a Full Court following the provisions of section 20(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act
19761. The originating and interlocutory application presented by the applicant before the
Federal Circuit Court has been heard by a Full Court according to the directions given by the
Chief Justice under the provisions of Section 20(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976
(Cth)2.
In this regard an application for judicial review was presented before the Court under the
provisions of Section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). After hearing the appeals of both the
1 Szewczyk, Bart MJ. "Customary International Law and Statutory Interpretation: An Empirical
Analysis of Federal Court Decisions." Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 82 (2013): 1118.
2 Opeskin, Brian. "State of the Judicature: A Statistical Profile of Australian Courts and
Judges." Revista Forumul Judecatorilor(2014): 133.

3ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
parties Justice Cowdroy rejected the interlocutory application and directed to comply with the
amended originating application. The applicant filed an application in the Federal Circuit Court
which has been declared as an application under Section 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) 3.
Section 476 deals with the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court while making decisions
where it has been emphasized that a Federal Circuit Court has no jurisdiction in case of a
primary decision and a privative clause decision4. However the extension of time is sought under
Section 477 and therefore in the present cases the applicant presented an application in order to
seek extension of time. The Federal Circuit Court however did not allow extension of time5.
Importance of Administrative Law:
Administrative law governs the decisions made by the executive of the government in
accordance to the individuals or corporations acting under the higher authority6. In regard to the
given case study which deals with the issues of immigration law that has been regarded as a kind
of administrative law as it contours the decisions made by a Minister through the delegates or
through independent tribunals. The subject matter of administrative law laid emphasis on the
judicial review of the decision of administrative bodies. The scope of Administrative law has
been rightly applied in SZSXT v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection because
various procedural errors were observed while making decision regarding the case and the Judge
3 Pietsch, Juliet. "Immigration and refugees: punctuations in the Commonwealth policy
agenda." Australian Journal of Public Administration 72.2 (2013): 143-155.
4 Pickering, Sharon, and Leanne Weber. "Policing transversal borders." The Borders of
Punishment. Migration, Citizenship, and Social Exclusion (2013): 93-110.
5 Cameron, Matthew. "From “queue jumpers” to “absolute scum of the earth”: Refugee and
organised criminal deviance in Australian asylum policy." Australian Journal of Politics &
History 59.2 (2013): 241-259.
6 Hammond, Emily, and David L. Markell. "Administrative Proxies for Judicial Review:
Building Legitimacy from the Inside-Out." (2013).

4ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
acted in unreasonableness while making the decision in relation to the judicial review made by
the Refugee Review Tribunal.

5ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Bibliography:
Cameron, Matthew. "From “queue jumpers” to “absolute scum of the earth”: Refugee and
organised criminal deviance in Australian asylum policy." Australian Journal of Politics &
History 59.2 (2013): 241-259.
Hammond, Emily, and David L. Markell. "Administrative Proxies for Judicial Review: Building
Legitimacy from the Inside-Out." (2013).
Opeskin, Brian. "State of the Judicature: A Statistical Profile of Australian Courts and
Judges." Revista Forumul Judecatorilor(2014): 133.
Pickering, Sharon, and Leanne Weber. "Policing transversal borders." The Borders of
Punishment. Migration, Citizenship, and Social Exclusion (2013): 93-110.
Pietsch, Juliet. "Immigration and refugees: punctuations in the Commonwealth policy
agenda." Australian Journal of Public Administration 72.2 (2013): 143-155. Pietsch, Juliet.
"Immigration and refugees: punctuations in the Commonwealth policy agenda." Australian
Journal of Public Administration 72.2 (2013): 143-155.
Szewczyk, Bart MJ. "Customary International Law and Statutory Interpretation: An Empirical
Analysis of Federal Court Decisions." Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 82 (2013): 1118.