Administrative Law (Doc)
6 Pages1142 Words127 Views
Added on 2020-05-16
Administrative Law (Doc)
Added on 2020-05-16
ShareRelated Documents
Running head: ADMINISTRATIVE LAWAdministrative LawName of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor Note
1ADMINISTRATIVE LAWFacts of the Case:In SZSXT v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection the applicant is SZSXTwhereas the respondents to the case are the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection andthe Judges of the Federal Justice Court of Australia. The applicant cannot read, write or speak inEnglish and depends upon the interpreter in order to communicate with the government. Theapplicant on April 12 arrived as Christmas Island from Iraq as an asylum seeker and thereafter onJuly 2012, he applied for protection visa. However his application for such visa wasunsuccessful. The applicant in order to seek review of the decision under the Tribunal wasrepresented by Mr Ford from Playfair Visa and Migration Services however such review wasalso unsuccessful. In May 2013, his friends recommended him to Mr Sarkis in order to resolvethe issue. Mr Sarkis misrepresented himself as an expert and ensured that he will help theapplicant in getting a permanent visa on signing certain documents. On 17th December 2013, anapplication was filed by the applicant that contained both originating and interlocutoryapplications. Such applications were presented before the Federal Court of Justice in order toseek relief on various matters including the confinement of the Minister from abolishing theapplicant from Australia. However the originating application was pending before the FederalCircuit Court which was to seek judicial review of a decision before the Court. The FederalCircuit Court did not extend the time period in order to grant permission to the applicant inseeking 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 beemphasized. The applicant stated that a jurisdictional error was committed by the Judge of
2ADMINISTRATIVE LAWFederal Circuit Court by rejecting an order to grant extension of time. The Court failed toprovide attention to the jurisdictional error made by the Tribunal by failing to comply with the2012 UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines on the concern of relocating within Iran. The FederalCircuit Court has considered the immaterial factors and therefore directed the applicant to seekhelp from the Minister rather than the Court. Mr. Sarkis committed a fraud on the Court whileconducting the application of the applicant. Legal principles:In the present case study it can be observed that the Federal Justice Court whileevaluating the issues involved in the case made its decision by depending on three differentlegislations- Section 20(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), Section 39B of theJudiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and Sections 476 and 477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Theprovisions of Section 20(1A) states that in case of matters where it was determined by the ChiefJustice that such matter is of utmost importance then in such cases it is applicable it can be heardby a Full Court following the provisions of section 20(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act19761. The originating and interlocutory application presented by the applicant before theFederal Circuit Court has been heard by a Full Court according to the directions given by theChief 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 theprovisions of Section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). After hearing the appeals of both the1Szewczyk, Bart MJ. "Customary International Law and Statutory Interpretation: An EmpiricalAnalysis of Federal Court Decisions."Geo. Wash. L. Rev.82 (2013): 1118.2Opeskin, Brian. "State of the Judicature: A Statistical Profile of Australian Courts andJudges."Revista Forumul Judecatorilor(2014): 133.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Implications of Beni v Minister for Immigration and Border Protectionlg...
|9
|2264
|100
Migration Lawlg...
|7
|1580
|42
Migration Law and Practice | Assignmentlg...
|6
|1127
|65
Migration Lawlg...
|5
|1056
|374
Karan v Minister for Immigration and Border Protectionlg...
|5
|1125
|63
Paper | Migration Law Analysis Assignmentlg...
|6
|1091
|462