FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZTIM v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 101 

Citation:	SZTIM v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 101	
		
Appeal from:	SZTIM v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2015] FCCA 666	
		
Parties:	SZTIM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION and ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (FORMERLY REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL)	
		
File number(s):	NSD 318 of 2015	
		
Judge(s):	MANSFIELD, ROBERTSON AND GRIFFITHS JJ	
		
Date of judgment:	31 July 2015	
		
Catchwords:	MIGRATION – application for visa – review by Federal Circuit Court of Australia (‘FCCA’) – where the first respondent accepted on appeal that the FCCA denied the appellant procedural fairness – appeal allowed by consent	
		
Cases cited:	Shrestha v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 87 	
		
Date of hearing:	31 July 2015	
		
Place:	Sydney	
		
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION	
		
Category:	Catchwords 	
		
Number of paragraphs:	4	
		
Solicitors for the Appellant:	Mr T Silva, Silva Solicitors	
		
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Ms H Dejean, Australian Government Solicitor	
		
	The second respondent submitted to any order the Court might make	

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA		
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY		
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 318 of 2015	

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA	

BETWEEN:	SZTIM
Appellant
	
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (FORMERLY REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL)
Second Respondent

JUDGES:	MANSFIELD, ROBERTSON AND GRIFFITHS JJ	
DATE OF ORDER:	31 july 2015	
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY	

BY CONSENT 

THE COURT ORDERS:

1.	The appeal be allowed.
2.	The orders made by the primary judge on 17 March 2015, including as to costs, be set aside.
3.	The matter be remitted to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, differently constituted, for determination of the claims for relief in the application (as amended) filed in that Court on 3 October 2013.
4.	The first respondent pay the appellant’s costs of these proceedings as agreed or assessed.
5.	The name of the second respondent be amended to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.  

THE COURT NOTES:
The first respondent accepts that the appellant was denied procedural fairness in that she was denied a reasonable opportunity to present her case before the Federal Circuit Court (Shrestha v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 87 at [38]-[41]) and the Court could not be satisfied that such a denial did not affect the outcome of the matter.

Note:	Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA		
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY		
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 318 of 2015	

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA	

BETWEEN:	SZTIM
Appellant
	
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (FORMERLY REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL)
Second Respondent

JUDGES:	MANSFIELD, ROBERTSON AND GRIFFITHS JJ	
DATE:	31 july 2015	
PLACE:	SYDNEY	

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT
1		This appeal was listed to be heard today, together with SZVDH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection NSD 481 of 2015.  
2		The parties provided to the Court proposed consent orders dated 16 July 2015 in the following terms:
BY CONSENT, THE COURT ORDERS:
1.	The appeal be allowed on the basis set out in the note included with this order.
2.	The orders made by the primary judge on 17 March 2015, including as to costs, be set aside.
3.	The matter be remitted to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, differently constituted, for determination of the claims for relief in the Application (as amended) filed in that Court on 3 October 2013.
4.	The First Respondent pay the Appellant’s costs of these proceedings as agreed or assessed.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
The First Respondent accepts that the Appellant was denied procedural fairness in that she was denied a reasonable opportunity to present her case before the Federal Circuit Court (Shrestha v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 87 at [38]-[41]) and the Court could not be satisfied that such a denial did not affect the outcome of the matter.

3		The Court is satisfied that the proposed consent orders should be made having regard to the principles which were approved and applied in the decision of the Full Court in Shrestha v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 87.  
4		Orders will be made accordingly.  

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Mansfield, Robertson and Griffiths.	

Associate: 
Dated: 31 July 2015