Applicant S1135 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2004] FCA 581

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S1135 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 581

APPLICANT S1135 of 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N345 of 2004

JACOBSON J
4 MAY 2004
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N345 of 2004

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S1135 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

N345 of 2004

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S1135 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 purports to be 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 application was filed out of time on 15 March 2004.  No notice of motion for an extension of time was filed but I will treat the application as though it were a motion for an extension.  I do so notwithstanding that there is nothing in the affidavit about the reasons for the delay. Nevertheless, I do not decide the application on that ground. 

  2. 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.

  3. The applicant filed an affidavit in support of her application for leave to appeal or extension of time.  The affidavit states that the applicant has no legal knowledge and has no knowledge that she had to file an application for leave to appeal within seven days.  The applicant also said in her affidavit that she has a strong case to prove her claim for a protection visa and that the facts of her case were ignored.

  4. The applicant appeared before me this morning in person with a Sri Lankan interpreter.  She appeared by telephone link to Melbourne.  One of the submissions she put to me was that she would like the case transferred to Melbourne.  However, I have heard the motion this morning on the telephone and it is therefore unnecessary for the proceedings to be transferred to the Victorian registry. 

  5. The only submission which the applicant put before me was that she had been helping a candidate in her political activities in Sri Lanka.  I assume this was said to be a ground for her claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution.  However, I cannot review the merits of the application and the applicant has not satisfied me that there is any arguable case that the decision of Justice Emmett was wrong. 

  6. In short, nothing has been put before me either in the affidavit or orally to suggest that there was any doubt about the correctness of his Honour's judgment.  I am satisfied that an extension of time would be futile because there are no prospects of success on the application for leave to appeal.

  7. The applicant stated that she does not have any legal knowledge and would like pro bono legal assistance.  However, there is no reason why an order under O80 of the Federal Court Rules for such assistance would be made in this case.  As I have said, there is nothing to suggest any doubt about the correctness of his Honour's decision. 

  8. Accordingly the orders that I will make are that the application is dismissed and the applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of the application as taxed or assessed or as agreed between the parties.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson.

Associate:

Date:               4 May 2004

Applicant self represented
Counsel for the Respondent: J D Harris SC
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 4 May 2004
Date of Judgment: 4 May 2004
Details
AGLC
Applicant S1135 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 581
Case
[2004] FCA 581
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Applicant S1135 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs involved a dispute where the applicant sought to challenge a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs to cancel their visa. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which has jurisdiction over matters related to immigration and visa decisions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the applicant's visa was lawful and whether the process followed by the Minister adhered to the relevant statutory requirements and principles of natural justice. The applicant argued that there were procedural errors in the decision-making process and that the decision was unjust and unreasonable. The Minister, on the other hand, asserted that the decision was correctly made in accordance with the law and that the applicant's arguments lacked merit.

The court examined the relevant legislative provisions and the procedural fairness principles that govern visa cancellation decisions. It determined that the Minister had followed the correct procedures and that the decision was made on lawful grounds. The court found that the Minister's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or based on irrelevant considerations. Furthermore, the court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense, nor had they shown any breaches of natural justice. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The Federal Court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application as taxed or assessed, or as agreed between the parties. This order reflects the court's view that the applicant's legal challenge was without merit and that the Minister's decision was lawfully made.

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.