Ayan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs - [2002] FCA 470

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ayan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 470
TAYFUN AYAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 21 OF 2002
EMMETT J
8 APRIL 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N21 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

TAYFUN AYAN
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 APRIL 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.        the application be dismissed; and
2.        the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding.
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

N21 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

TAYFUN AYAN
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

8 APRIL 2002

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant is a citizen of Turkey. He first came to Australia on 21 August 1976, having been born in Turkey on 27 February 1976. He was therefore only several months old at the time of his first arrival in Australia. As at December 2001, the applicant was the holder of a resident return visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)(“the Act”). On 5 December 2001, the respondent, the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (“the Minister”), cancelled the visa.
By application filed in this Court on 9 January 2002, the applicant seeks relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), quashing the Minister’s decision to cancel his visa. The Minister acted under s 501 of the Migration Act. Section 501(2) relevantly provides as follows:
“The Minister may cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:
(a)the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test; and
(b)the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.”
Under s 501(6)(a) person does not pass the character test if the person has a substantial criminal record as defined in section 501(7). Under s 501(7)(c), for the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twelve months or more.”
It is common ground that the applicant has failed to satisfy the Minister that he passes the character test. The only question was the exercise by the Minister of his discretion, under s 501(2), to cancel a visa, having reasonably suspected that the applicant does not pass the character and the applicant not having the satisfied the Minister that he does pass the character test.
The applicant contends in support of his application for prerogative relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act, that the decision was subject to jurisdictional error and that such error will attract an order of certiorari under s 39B of the Judiciary Act to quash the decision. The Minister, on the other hand, apart from disputing that there was…

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 Ayan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs 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: [2002] FCA 470
Decision Date: 8 APRIL 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ayan, the applicant, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs, the respondent, to cancel his visa on the basis of character grounds. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the decision was lawful, reasonable, and just. The primary legal issues were whether the Minister’s decision was supported by relevant considerations and whether it was open to the Minister to conclude that the applicant’s conduct warranted visa cancellation.

The court examined the statutory framework governing visa cancellation, focusing on whether the Minister’s decision was based on a proper application of the relevant legislative provisions. The court assessed whether the Minister had considered all relevant factors and whether the decision was within the bounds of rationality. It was also necessary to determine whether the decision was made in a manner that complied with procedural fairness and natural justice. The applicant argued that the Minister had failed to consider mitigating factors and had acted arbitrarily. The court found that the Minister’s decision was grounded in the evidence before him and was not irrational or unjust. The court held that the Minister was entitled to conclude that the applicant’s conduct, which included convictions for serious criminal offences, justified visa cancellation.

Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding, reflecting the lack of merit in the applicant's claims. This outcome underscores the importance of adherence to statutory requirements and the proper exercise of discretionary powers in administrative law.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. the application be dismissed; and

2. the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding.

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

EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N21 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	TAYFUN AYAN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 APRIL 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	8 APRIL 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY