Farah Farah & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2011] HCASL 110

FARAH FARAH & ORS
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2011] HCASL 110
S129/2011

1. The first applicant applied for a carer visa at the Australian Embassy in Beirut in June 2008.  His wife and three of their children were included in the application.  The basis of the application was the need of the first applicant's uncle for care as he was suffering from cancer.  In September and October 2008 the first applicant informed officers of the Department of Immigration of his uncle's health status.  In the second of those interviews he described the uncle's condition as having stabilised.  The uncle had died in August 2008.  The first applicant, his wife and the children were granted visas in January 2009.  The family arrived in Australia in February 2009.

2. In October 2009 the first applicant was advised that the Department was giving consideration to whether he had given incorrect information in support of his application and whether he had failed to advise the Department of a relevant change in his circumstances[1].  The first applicant responded to this advice, stating that he had not been aware of his uncle's death until his arrival in Australia.

   [1]Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 101, 104, 105.

3. In December 2009 the Minister's delegate cancelled the first applicant's visa.  The visas of the wife and children were cancelled in consequence of that decision[2].

   [2]Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 140(1).

4. The applicants applied for a review of the delegate's decision to the Migration Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  The Tribunal found that the delegate was satisfied of the first applicant's non-compliance with provisions of the Migration Act[3].  The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. 

   [3]Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 109.

5. An application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision was dismissed by the Federal Magistrates Court (Nicholls FM). 

6. An appeal to the Federal Court (Jessup J) was dismissed.

7. The applicants apply for special leave to appeal from the orders of the Federal Court.  The grounds set out in the draft notice of appeal assert that the Tribunal "failed to justify its decision" and that it ignored the evidence given by the first applicant and his wife.  No question of law suitable for the grant of special leave is raised by the application.  The applicants' written case is largely directed to a new case, which is that the deceased uncle's widow is in poor health and in need of care.  Various challenges to the Tribunal's factual findings are advanced.  If special leave to appeal were granted, the appeal would have no prospects of success.

8. The appeal is dismissed.

9. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the applications. 

J.D. Heydon
8 June 2011 V.M. Bell