FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ahmed v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 38
REHAN AHMED v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
S796 OF 2003TAMBERLIN, SACKVILLE AND FINN JJ
ADELAIDE
24 FEBRUARY 2004
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
S796 OF 2003
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
REHAN AHMED
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGES:
TAMBERLIN, SACKVILLE AND FINN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
24 FEBRUARY 2004
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
S796 OF 2003
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
REHAN AHMED
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
TAMBERLIN, SACKVILLE AND FINN JJ
DATE:
24 FEBRUARY 2004
PLACE:
ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
When this appeal was called on for hearing there was no appearance by the appellant and the respondent sought an order under O 52 r 18(3) of the Federal Court Rules (“the Rules”) that the appeal be dismissed by the Court as incompetent. In view of the fact that the decision below is interlocutory in character, that leave to appeal is necessary and that no application for leave, or for an extension of time within which to seek leave, has been made, the Court considers that the appeal is incompetent and accordingly dismisses the appeal.
The respondent in this matter has applied for costs. The Court considers that in view of the way in which this whole proceeding has been conducted by the appellant since its initiation, this is an appropriate case in which to make an order under O 52 r 18 of the Rules that the appellant pay the costs of the respondent of this appeal.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Tamberlin, Sackville and Finn. Associate:
Dated: 27 February 2004
No appearance by the Appellant. Counsel for the Respondent: K Tredrea Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 24 February 2004 Date of Judgment: 24 February 2004
- AGLC
- Ahmed v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 38
- Case
- [2004] FCAFC 38
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues revolved around whether the Minister had jurisdiction to cancel Mr. Ahmed's visa and whether the decision was procedurally fair, reasonable, and based on relevant considerations. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Minister's decision-making process complied with the Migration Act 1958 and whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence.
The court found that the Minister had the requisite jurisdiction to cancel Mr. Ahmed's visa and that the decision-making process was procedurally fair. The court held that the Minister had considered the relevant statutory criteria and had not made any jurisdictional errors. The appellant's arguments regarding procedural fairness and the consideration of personal circumstances were rejected as the court found that the Minister's decision was reasonable and based on the evidence before him. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: TAMBERLIN, SACKVILLE AND FINN JJ
Full text does not contain this section.