Dti16 v Minister for Immigration
[2018] FCCA 1593
•2 March 2018
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| DTI16 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2018] FCCA 1593 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Migration Act1958 (Cth) – protection visa application – s.48A of the Act – s.48A argued not to preclude a subsequent protection visa application because an earlier protection visa application was not made on the correct version of Form 866 in force in 1999 but rather on a later Form 866 and hence earlier protection visa application invalid – identical argument raised in this Court and in Federal Court of Australia unsuccessfully on numerous occasions – no jurisdictional error – argument rejected and earlier protection visa application not invalid – application dismissed. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36, 48A Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) |
| Cases cited: Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552 AJB15 v Minister for Immigration [2017] FCCA 1592 AJB15 v Minister for Immigration [2018] FCA 57 APU17 v Minister for Immigration [2017] FCCA 1591 SZGIZ v Minister of Immigration and Citizenship (2013) 212 FCR 235 SZLZS v Minister for Immigration [2017] FCCA 2578 |
| Applicant: | DTI16 |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 3475 of 2016 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Dowdy |
| Hearing date: | 2 March 2018 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 2 March 2018 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr O. Jones of Counsel |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Firmstone & Associates |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Mr A. Markus |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Australian Government Solicitor |
THE ORDERS OF THE COURT ARE AS FOLLOWS
Pursuant to r.13.10(a) of the Federal Circuit Rules 2001 (Cth) the Application filed in this Court on 7 December 2016 is dismissed.
The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs of the proceeding in the sum of $4,200.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3475 of 2016
| DTI16 |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
EX TEMPORE
(REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT)
By an Application filed in this Court on 7 December 2016, the Applicant seeks to quash a decision of the Second Respondent, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 7 November 2016, which affirmed a decision of the Delegate (the Delegate) of the First Respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Minister) dated 6 March 2015, refusing to grant a Protection (Class XA) visa (Protection visa) to the Applicant under the complementary protection criterion.
The Applicant is female a citizen of Lebanon aged 66, having been born on 15 November 1951. She arrived in Australia on 3 February 2010 on a Visitor (Subclass 676) visa.
She applied for a Protection visa on 21 April 2011. A Delegate of the Minister refused to grant the Protection visa to her on 9 August 2011. She then applied to the then Refugee Review Tribunal, which affirmed the Delegate’s decision on 8 March 2012.
Following the introduction of the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) on 24 March 2012 the Applicant lodged a further Application for a Protection visa on 7 November 2012 (present Protection visa application) which resulted in the adverse decisions by the Delegate and the Tribunal referred to in [1] above. The decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia on 3 July 2013 in SZGIZ v Minister of Immigration and Citizenship (2013) 212 FCR 235 found that s.48A of the Act as it then stood did not prevent a person from making another Protection visa application on complementary protection grounds when the earlier application had been determined only on Refugees Convention grounds.
Ground of Attack on Tribunal Decision in this Court
The only Ground relied upon by the Applicant is to the effect that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make its decision of 7 November 2016 affirming the Delegate’s decision not to grant a Protection visa to the Applicant under the present Protection visa application because the Tribunal lacked any jurisdiction to do so. This lack of jurisdiction was claimed to result from the Applicant using the wrong and unauthorised Form 866 when she made her present Protection visa application, such that it was an invalid application because it had no statutory foundation as a result of having been made on the unauthorised Form 866, and therefore the adverse decision of the Delegate was a nullity. The reference to Form 866 in Item 1401 of Sch.1 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations) was to be construed as incorporating the whole of Form 866 into the Regulations at the time when Item 1401 first came into effect on 20 October 1999. Later versions of Form 866 were not incorporated and therefore not valid forms of Form 866, and hence the present Protection visa application was invalid.
Mr Jones of Counsel appears for the Applicant in this proceeding. By Application in a Case filed on 4 December 2017, the Minister seeks dismissal of the Application on the basis that the Applicant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding. Mr Markus appears on behalf of the Minister in support of the Application in a Case for summary dismissal. He has read two affidavits, one which formally sets out the claim for dismissal and the other which goes to factual matters.
The Ground in this proceeding has been argued many times in both this Court and the Federal Court of Australia, often by Mr Jones. On all occasions it has been rejected in this Court and further rejected on appeal to the Federal Court of Australia. Below is a table which identifies these cases, which are asterisked when Mr Jones appeared.
| Name of Decision | Federal Circuit Court Citation | Federal Court of Australia Citation |
| BJV16 v Minister for Immigration | [2017] FCCA 178; Street J.* | [2017] FCA 1205 (BJV16); Burley J. |
| SZUGL v Minister for Immigration | (2017) 320 FLR 1; Dowdy J.* | No appeal. |
| APU17 v Minister for Immigration | [2017] FCCA 1591; Dowdy J.* | [2018] FCA 56; Burley J.* |
| AJB15 v Minister for Immigration | [2017] FCCA 1592; Dowdy J.* | [2018] FCA 57; Burley J.* |
| CDI15 v Minister for Immigration | [2017] FCCA 1603; Street J.* | [2018] FCA 58; Burley J. |
| CNP16 v Minister for Immigration | [2017] FCCA 704; Street J.* | [2018] FCA 65; Burley J.* |
| SZMOV v Minister for Immigration | [2017] FCCA 1584; Dowdy J.* | [2018] FCA 66; Burley J. |
| BLR15 v Minister for Immigration | [2017] FCCA 1068; Street J.* | [2018] FCA 67; Burley J.* |
| AUM17 v Minister for Immigration | [2017] FCCA 2070; Street J. | [2018] FCA 306; Banks-Smith J. |
| SZLZS v Minister for Immigration | [2017] FCCA 2578; Street J. | [2018] FCA 748; Reeves J. |
Enough judicial time has been spent considering this argument and it is sufficient for present purposes to set out the reasoning of Burley J in connection with the use of Form 866 in BJV16 at [19] – [30].
[19] The Minster has since October 1999 prescribed different versions of Form 866 from time to time. The appellant’s application for the Visa was made using the Completed Form 866 which is a later and different (although I note that the two forms, which are in evidence, are not materially different to each other) to the 1999 Form. The appellant contends that as the Completed Form 866 is not the application form required by the Regulations, it cannot be valid, and the primary judge erred by holding that either the Tribunal or the Delegate had jurisdiction in relation to the appellant’s application for review.
[20] This ingenious but unattractive argument should be rejected for two reasons.
[21] First, in my view s 14 of the Legislation Act 2003 (Cth) is not engaged in the present circumstances. The reference in Schedule 1 Item 1401 to Form 866 simply identifies a type of form that must be completed by an applicant for a Protection (Class XA) Visa. The particular form is not incorporated into the Regulations. Rather, a type or genre of document that must be completed is identified, namely a document identified broadly as Form 866.
[22] Subsection 46(1) relevantly provides that an application for a visa is valid if and only if it is for a visa for a class specified in the application and the requirements of s 46 are satisfied. Subsection 46(2) relevantly provides that an application for a visa is valid if it is an application for a visa for the class prescribed for the purposes of that subsection and, under the Regulations, the application is taken to have been validly made. Subsection 46(3) provides that the Regulations may prescribe criteria that must be satisfied for an application of a specified class to be valid.
[23] Section 495 of the Act provides:
Minister may approve forms
The Minister may, in writing, approve a form for the purposes of a provision of this Act in which the expression “approved form” is used.
[24] That definition is significant and will apply not only to the Act, but also to the Regulations; Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (Cth) s 13(1).
[25] The Regulations also address approved forms. Regulation 1.18 provides:
Approved forms
(1) The Minister may, in writing, approve forms for:
(a) use in making an application for a visa; or
(b) any other purpose authorised or required by these Regulations.
…
[26] Regulation 2.07(1)(a) provides that the “approved form” must be completed by an applicant. That is to be understood to mean such form that the Minister from time to time approves pursuant to s 495 and reg 1.18.
[27] Schedule 1, Item 1401 identifies the code number or name to be ascribed to such form, namely the Form 866.
[28] Taken together, reg 2.07(1) and Item 1401 identify that an applicant must complete a Form 866 in order to make a valid application, but the form itself is not incorporated into the legislation. Rather, the Regulation has the effect of indicating that such Form 866 as the Minister may from time to time approve, should be completed.
[29] Accordingly, the terms of s 14 of the Legislation Act 2003(Cth) are not engaged. Regulation 2.07(1) read with Schedule 1 item 1401 does not provide for the incorporation by reference of a particular form.
[30] Secondly, in my view a relevant contrary intention in accordance with s 14(3) of the Legislation Act would be apparent in any event. For the purposes of s 14(2), a ‘contrary intention’ need not be found in a single express provision but may be ascertained from the legislative context; Comcare v Broadhurst [2011] FCAFC 39; 192 FCR 497 at 67 (Tracey and Flick JJ). The choice of the defined term “approved form” in reg 2.07(1)(a) signifies that a particular form is not nominated, but rather such form as the Minister may approve, exercising powers pursuant to s 495 and reg 1.18. The language of Schedule 1 Item 1401, in referring to a generic form number supports that view.
Mr Jones recognises and accepts that, on the basis of the above authorities which have considered his argument, the Applicant in this proceeding has no reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting the present proceeding.
In considering the Application in a Case brought by the Minister I have taken into account and had regard to the principles and the high hurdle established by such well-known cases as Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62; General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; Fancourt v Mercantile Credits (1983) 48 ALR 1; Spencer v Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118 and Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552. In my view, on the basis of the authorities which have considered Mr Jones’ argument the present Application is hopeless and must fail.
Conclusion
Accordingly, in the circumstances, I propose in the first instance to order that pursuant to r.13.10(a) of the Federal Circuit Rules 2001 (Cth) the Application filed in this Court on 7 December 2016 is dismissed on the basis that it has no reasonable prospects of successfully being prosecuted in this proceeding.
I certify that the preceding eleven (11) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Dowdy
Associate:
Date: 19 June 2018
0
7
4