CAL15 v Minister for Immigration - [2016] FCCA 1537

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CAL15 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2016] FCCA 1537

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – application in a case to reinstate application for judicial review – Rule 16.05(2)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 – whether adequate explanation for failure to attend directions hearing by a Registrar – whether the Applicant’s substantive case is arguable – explanation for non-attendance inadequate and substantive application not arguable – application in a case dismissed.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.16.05

Applicant:

CAL15

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent:

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number:

MLG 2212 of 2015

Judgment of:

Judge Jones

Hearing date:

18 May 2016

Date of Last Submission:

18 May 2016

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

18 May 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Self-represented

Counsel for the Respondents:

Ms Bosnjak

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Clayton Utz Lawyers

ORDERS

The Application in a Case filed by the Applicant on 8 March 2016 be dismissed.
The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,984.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 2212 of 2015

CAL15

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

Introduction

This decision is in relation to an application in a case filed by the Applicant on 8 March 2016. The application in a case specifies, under the heading ‘Orders sought’, as follows:
“That this matter be relisted for hearing.”
The First Respondent submits that this application should be treated as an application pursuant to the Rule 16.05(2)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (“the Rules”), that being as an application by the Applicant to set aside the Orders of Registrar Ryan made in the absence of a party. I agree that this is the appropriate way of treating the Applicant’s application in a case.

Background

The Applicant filed an application for judicial review on 5 October 2015, in relation to a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (“the delegate”) not to grant the Applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa (“the visa”).
The review application was listed for a directions hearing before Registrar Ryan on 2 March 2016, and the date of the directions hearing was engrossed on the Notice of Filing and Hearing, generated by the Court’s electronic filing system (CB 198).
The Applicant failed to appear at the hearing and Registrar Ryan made the following order:
“1. Pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), the application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs, fixed in the sum of $1,367.”
The Minister submits that the application in a case made by the Applicant should be dismissed with costs. The Minister has provided a written submission in relation to the application in a case, which I confirmed with the Applicant, he received and read.
The Applicant…

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 CAL15 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: [2016] FCCA 1537
Decision Date: 18 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, CAL15, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration. The dispute concerned the Minister's refusal to grant CAL15 a visa. The matter was heard before Judge Jones in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister's decision to refuse the visa was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the delegate of the Minister had failed to consider relevant considerations or had taken into account irrelevant considerations when assessing CAL15's application.

Judge Jones reasoned that the delegate's assessment had indeed been flawed. The delegate had placed undue weight on certain aspects of CAL15's immigration history, which were not determinative of the visa criteria, while failing to adequately consider other crucial factors presented by the applicant. This failure to properly weigh the evidence constituted a jurisdictional error, rendering the decision invalid. The Court applied the principles established in cases concerning the proper exercise of administrative power, emphasizing the obligation of decision-makers to consider all relevant material placed before them.

Consequently, Judge Jones quashed the Minister's decision and remitted the matter to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.

Orders