Chaudhari v Minister for Home Affairs

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Chaudhari v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1363

Appeal from:

Chaudhari v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2018] FCCA 863

File number:

QUD 133 of 2018

Judge:

RANGIAH J

Date of judgment:

14 August 2018

Catchwords:

MIGRATION – appeal from Federal Circuit Court – refusal to grant Medical Treatment Visa – where appellant failed to respond to invitation to give information – appeal dismissed

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 349(2), 359(2), 359A(1), (4), 359B, 359C, 360(1), (2), 363A and 424A

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) Sch 2, cl 602.213

Date of hearing:

14 August 2018

Registry:

Queensland

Division:

General Division

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category:

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

13

Counsel for the Appellant:

The Appellant did not appear

Solicitor for the First Respondent:

Mr G King of Minter Ellison

Counsel for the Second Respondent:

The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice

ORDERS

QUD 133 of 2018

BETWEEN:

DINESHKUMAR JOITABHAI CHAUDHARI

Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE:	RANGIAH J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 AUGUST 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered ex tempore and revised)

RANGIAH J:

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia delivered on 22 February 2018 dismissing the appellant’s application for a review of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 14 September 2016.  The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse the appellant the grant of a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) Visa. 

2. The Tribunal’s decision record included the following passages explaining the delegate’s decision and the steps taken by the Tribunal before making its decision: 

   3.The delegate refused to grant Mr Chaudhari the visa because his visa application was received on 16 May 2016, more than 28 days after Mr Chaudhari’s last substantive visa had ceased, and criterion 3001 of Schedule 3 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) was therefore not met as required.

   4. Mr Chaudhari lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the Tribunal on 3 June 2016.

   5. The Tribunal wrote to Mr Chaudhari on 30 August 2016, pursuant to subsection 359(2) of the Act, inviting him to provide information addressing the requirement to meet the criterion specified in item 3001 of Schedule 3 to the Regulations. The invitation was sent to the last email address provided by Mr Chaudhari and Mr Chaudhari was advised that, if the information was not provided in writing by 13 September 2016, and no extension of time had been granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the information and that Mr Chaudhari would lose any entitlement he might otherwise have had under…