Das v Minister for Immigration - [2009] FMCA 339

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZNPF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2009] FMCA 339

MIGRATION – Visa Bridging A (Class WA) visa – application for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal – where application for judicial review of a decision to refuse a protection visa was dismissed because of the applicant’s failure to attend Court – where applicant applied to the Court for reinstatement under Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 r.16.05 – where application for a Bridging A visa refused because the substantive application for the visa had been dismissed – no jurisdictional error.

Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), ss.14, 15
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.65, 474, 476
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Part 010 of Schedule 2, cl. 010.211
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, rr.13.03A, 13.03C, 16.02, 16.05, 16.08

SZGPK v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2008] FMCA 1054
SZDMD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 126

Applicant:

SZNPF

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG3335/2008

Judgment of:

Scarlett FM

Hearing date:

18 February 2009

Date of Last Submission:

18 February 2009

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

27 April 2009

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant:

In person

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr Reilly

Solicitors for the Respondents:

DLA Phillips Fox

ORDERS

The Application is dismissed.
The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5000.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG3335/2008

SZNPF

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

This is an application for review of a decision of the Migration Review affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship not to grant the applicant a Bridging A (Class WA) visa. The applicant asks the Court to make the following orders:
(1)a writ of certiorari quashing the decision by the Migration Review Tribunal;
(2)A writ of mandamus directed to the Tribunal directing it to rehear and redetermine the application for a visa according to law; and
(3)A writ of prohibition directed to the Minister preventing the Minister from acting upon or giving effect to or enforcing the decision.
The applicant claims that the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction under the Migration Act 1958 because:
The Migration Review Tribunal failed to take into account that I lodged an application to the Federal Magistrates Court for reinstatement of the matter within the statutory time limit.
The Minister’s lawyers have filed a response opposing the making of the orders sought.

Background

The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia on 23^rd June 2004. He applied for a protection visa on 2^nd August 2004 and was granted a Bridging A visa.
After his application for a protection visa was refused on 29^th November 2004, the applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal for a review of that decision. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision on 31^st May…

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 Das 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: [2009] FMCA 339
Decision Date: 27 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Das v Minister for Immigration was a legal challenge brought before the Federal Court of Australia. The Applicant, Mr Das, sought to contest a decision made by the First Respondent, the Minister for Immigration, that resulted in the refusal of his application for a visa. Mr Das argued that the Minister’s decision was flawed and contrary to the applicable legal standards, leading to an unjust outcome. The Minister, on the other hand, defended the decision as being within the proper exercise of their statutory powers and based on a reasonable assessment of the relevant facts and law.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Minister’s decision was legally valid, and whether the Applicant had demonstrated that the decision was unreasonable. This involved examining the applicable legislation, regulations, and case law to determine whether the decision-making process adhered to the required legal standards. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the Minister had considered all relevant information and whether any errors in the decision-making process were significant enough to warrant setting the decision aside.

The Federal Court, in its reasoning, found that the Minister's decision was indeed legally sound and reasonable. The court held that the Minister had exercised their discretion in accordance with the law and had considered all relevant factors. The court found no basis to interfere with the Minister's decision, as it was not shown to be flawed or unjust. Consequently, the court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal and ordered that the Applicant pay the Minister’s costs in the sum of $5000.00.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application is dismissed.

The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5000.00.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.