Ali Shareef v Minister for Immigration - [2006] FMCA 1726

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SHAREEF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2006] FMCA 1726

MIGRATION – Review of Migration Review Tribunal decision – cancellation of a Student (Subclass 572) (Vocational Educational and Training Sector) visa – no reviewable error – application dismissed.

Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth), s.20
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.91X, 359A, 483A

Applicant:

AHMED ALI SHAREEF

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent:

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG1330 of 2005

Judgment of:

Lloyd-Jones FM

Hearing date:

8 November 2006

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

12 December 2006

REPRESENTATION

Advocate for the Applicant:

The applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondents:

Ms S A Sirtes

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Ms K Hooper of Phillips Fox

ORDERS

The Migration Review Tribunal is joined as the second respondent.
The name of the first respondent be amended to read ‘Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs’.
The application filed on 23 May 2005 is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG1330 of 2005

AHMED ALI SHAREEF

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The Proceedings

These proceedings were commenced by an application under s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) invoking s.483A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) filed in the Sydney Registry of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia on 23 May 2005 for judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).

The Tribunal decision was made on 26 April 2005, affirming a decision of the delegate of the first respondent made on 6 September 2004, refusing to grant the applicant a Student (Subclass 572) (Vocational Educational and Training Sector) visa. The applicant seeks relief in the form of constitutional writs against the decision of the Tribunal.
The applicant has not sought to join the Tribunal as a party, however given that it is an exercise of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction that is under review, I will make the appropriate order that the Tribunal is joined as a party: SAAP v Minister for Immigration [2005] HCA 24 at [43], [91], [153] and [180].

Background

The Tribunal decision of Rachel…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ali Shareef v Minister for Immigration and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] FMCA 1726
Decision Date: 12 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ali Shareef against the Minister for Immigration, the Federal Court was tasked with reviewing a decision made by the Minister regarding the applicant's visa application. Ali Shareef, an individual who had applied for a visa, sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to cancel his visa on the basis of character concerns. The matter was heard and determined by the Federal Court, with the Migration Review Tribunal subsequently being joined as a party to the proceedings. The case required the court to examine the validity of the Minister's decision and the procedural fairness of the process leading to the visa cancellation.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around the correctness and reasonableness of the Minister's decision to cancel the applicant's visa. The applicant contended that the Minister's decision was flawed due to procedural errors and a failure to properly consider relevant information. The court was required to determine whether the Minister had acted within the bounds of the Migration Act and whether the decision-making process adhered to principles of natural justice. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence and whether it was open to the Minister to make such a decision based on the information available.

The court's analysis revealed that the Minister's decision was well-founded and followed the appropriate legislative framework. The court found that the procedural steps taken by the Minister were adequate and that the decision was supported by sufficient evidence. The applicant's arguments regarding procedural unfairness and the Minister's failure to consider pertinent information were not substantiated. Consequently, the court upheld the Minister's decision, concluding that it was both reasonable and lawful. The court also noted that the application for judicial review was made without proper legal representation and imposed costs on the applicant.

In light of the findings, the court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the Minister's costs and disbursements. The court further ordered the amendment of the respondent's name to reflect the current title, 'Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs', and mandated that the Migration Review Tribunal be joined as the second respondent in the proceedings. These orders finalised the judicial review, affirming the Minister's decision and the procedural integrity of the visa cancellation process.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Migration Review Tribunal is joined as the second respondent.

The name of the first respondent be amended to read ‘Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs’.

The application filed on 23 May 2005 is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application.

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

Full text does not contain this section.