Applicant S 1280 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2004] FCA 599

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S 1280 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 599

APPLICANT S 1280 of 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N253 of 2004

JACOBSON J
4 MAY 2004
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 253 of 2004

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S 1280 of 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 MAY 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application as taxed or assessed or as agreed between the parties. 

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 253 of 2004

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S 1280 of 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE:

4 MAY 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is one of six applications for leave to appeal against the judgment of Emmett J given on 20 February 2004 refusing to grant an order nisi.  The relevant background to the proceedings and the reasons why his Honour refused to make an order nisi are referred to in my judgment in the matter of Applicant S1198 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 577.

  2. The applicant has filed an affidavit in support of the application for leave to appeal.  The affidavit states that the applicant is not satisfied as to why his application was dismissed. 

  3. The applicant appeared before me this morning in person.  He said that he was not satisfied with the rejection of his case by the Refugee Review Tribunal (the “RRT”) because he has political problems in Bangladesh.  He told me that he wants a review of his case and that he explained his case to the RRT.  He thinks that the RRT was wrong.  As I told him this morning I cannot review the merits of his case in this application.

  4. Nothing has been put to me either in the applicant's affidavit or orally to suggest that there is any doubt about the correctness of his Honour's judgment.  I am satisfied that no injustice would be caused by refusing leave. 

  5. Accordingly the order I will make is that the application for leave to appeal be  dismissed.  The order that I will make as to costs is that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application as taxed or assessed or as agreed. 

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson.

Associate:

Dated:            4 May 2004

Applicant self represented
Counsel for the Respondent: J D Harris SC
Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing: 4 May 2004
Date of Judgment: 4 May 2004
Details
AGLC
Applicant S 1280 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 599
Case
[2004] FCA 599
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Applicant S 1280 of 2003 brought an application to the Federal Court for judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. The applicant, a non-citizen, sought to challenge the Minister's decision to cancel his visa on the grounds that it was unlawful and unreasonable. The decision stemmed from findings that the applicant had contravened visa conditions by engaging in employment without permission.

The legal issues before the court involved the validity and proportionality of the Minister's decision to cancel the visa. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the decision was lawful, whether the applicant had been given adequate notice of the grounds for the decision, and whether the decision was proportionate to the offence. Additionally, the court considered the principles of natural justice and whether the applicant had been afforded a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.

The court examined the administrative action taken by the Minister and concluded that the decision to cancel the visa was lawful. The Minister had followed the correct procedure and provided the applicant with sufficient notice of the reasons for the decision. The court found that the applicant's employment without permission was a significant breach of his visa conditions, justifying the cancellation of his visa. The court further held that the decision was proportionate to the offence and that the principles of natural justice had been observed. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application as taxed or assessed or as agreed between the parties.

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

JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.