AZAEC v Minister for Immigration

[2013] FCCA 758

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AZAEC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2013] FCCA 758

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application to set aside decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – no jurisdiction to hear the application – application dismissed.

Legislation:  
Migration Act 1958, ss.476(2)(d) and 47(4)7
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.44.12

Applicant: AZAEC

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

File Number: ADG 108 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Lindsay

Hearing date: 11 June 2013

Date of Last Submission: 11 June 2013

Delivered at: Adelaide

Delivered on: 11 June 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: AZAEC in person

Solicitors for the Applicant: NA

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Alderton

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed pursuant to the powers of the Court under Rule 44.12 of the Rules of Court

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of an incidental to these proceedings fixed in a sum of ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY ONE DOLLARS ($1331).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT ADELAIDE

ADG 108 of 2013

AZAEC

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The Court has no jurisdiction to hear this application for the reasons Mr Alderton has outlined. 

2. The jurisdiction of this Court is the same jurisdiction as that possessed by the High Court under para.75(v) of the Commonwealth Constitution but in relation to “migration decisions” as that expression is defined in the Act. 

3. The jurisdiction of this Court is expressly limited by the exclusions referred to in s.476(2) of the Act. By the combined operation of s.476(2)(d) and s.47(4)7 of the Migration Act 1958, the review of a decision of the Minister under s.417 of the Act (which is what the applicant is complaining about) is a matter that is expressly removed from the jurisdiction of this Court. 

4. In those circumstances, the application will be dismissed pursuant to the powers of the Court under Rule 44.12 of the Rules of Court.  And I so order.

5. It is appropriate that costs follow the event.  There will be an order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings fixed in a sum of $1331.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Lindsay

Associate: 

Date:  9 July 2013