Gao, Y.J v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

[1994] FCA 220

JUDGMENT No. ........ ........ .. ,....,,,,.. 220 ,9?k

i

.?

:  CATCHWORDS

IMMIGRATION - appeal from Immigration Review Trlbunal - whether Tribunal erred m law by declining to conduct review on ground it had no jurisdiction - meaning of "lawfully present in Australia".

Mieration Act 1958, ss 13, 14(l)(a), 14(3), 33(l)(c), 59, 60, llh(l)(c)
Mieration Reeulations, regs 24(l)(d), 27(2)(n)

Milrration (Review) Rerrulations, regs 21(3)(a), (4)(a) and (7)@)

Zanezinchai v. Millanta (1993) 116 ALR 357

YING J1 GAO and STANLEY KO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION and

ETHNIC AFFAIRS

No. NG 604 of 1993

Coram:	Whitlam J
Place:	Sydney
Date:	31 March 1994

JUDGMENT No. ..,22.2 ..., l .,?,?, .,.

IN TI-IE FEDERAL COURT OF AUS'I'RLIA

NEW SOUTI-I WALES DISTRICl' REGISTRY	NG 604 of 1993
GENERAL DIVISION	)

YIN JI GAO

F~rst Applicant

STrnLEY KO

Seconcl Applicant

M I N I S T E R F O R IMMIGIIATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS

Respondent

Coraill.	Whitlam J
P l a ~ e	Sydney
Date	31 March 1994

28 APR 1994

FEDERAL COURT

AUSTRALIA

PRINCIPAL

REASONS FOR JIJDGMENT REGISTRY

(Ex Ternpore)

'The i~rst appl~cant is a Chlncsc nat~onal who had been granted a te~npo~ary ently

visa of the clohe lanl~ly vlqitor lass Shc hat1 entered Austral~a on 2 July 1991 and had

snbscqiiently been granted two furthcr temporary cntry pernuts of thc same class, thc last

of wl11c11 exp~red on 29 April 1992

On 12 1992 the first appl~cant lodgccl an appl~cat~on tor a tenipo~ary res~dcnt

entry	pe~~l l l t	01 the specialist (otc~seas)	lass	Thc second appl~canl was her \pollsor.
The ~espondent's	tlclegetc ~elusctl	to grant such a n cntry permit and h ~ s	dec~s~on	was

ilff~~mcd by u levlew oll~cer. The second applicaril applicd lor a lcview of this dec~sron

to ilic Irnm~gratlol~ Rcv~ew Trlbunal ("the Tribunal"), wh~ch dcclr~iecl to conduct il rev~ew

on thc gro~ind that i t had no jurlscll~tlon. The l'~lbunnl stated:

"Tlle [{irhl npplicc~r~l] ltsas ... (111 l//eg(rl errlrflrll 11t ille dnte of

n~~plrtn~ror~ nrld ns .mclz does no/ Iln11e n rig111 of revre~v ill re~peci of

/he rc/trsrll of lrer crpplrcrrliorz (~e~y!~l~Iu/ior~ 21(3), Afigrntlorz (Review)

Regu1n1ior1.s) N I Z ~ llcr spoiz.ror h h - e ~ ~ i . ~ does 1101 11nve a rigllt of review

(reg~ilniiorz 21 (7)) "

The appl~ca~its purport to appeal to the Court fiom tlie cleclslon of the Tribuntll

ur~del s 138 ol tlie Mleratlon Act 1958 Thcy s ~ ~ h n ~ l l that thc T11burla.1 erred in law in

holding that il had no juliscllct~cln.

Altliougll thc M~e~at lon (Kevlew) Reaulatrons have been lepcaled, they contlnue

to apply to applications for entry pcrlnlts lodgcd beforc 1 Fcbruary 1993. The lclevant legislative prov~sion\ are cxplainecl 111 Zan~z~nch:u v. M~lla~lta (1993) 116 AI,R 357 by

" BY .S 116(l)(c) or file Act ilre reg~rloiiorls nlny provide /or per.sor~s

HJIIO ~ ~ ( I J J ~ I I I J ~ for review of deckiorls hy ille 'liiburznl

l l r n c i I r e,y 21 (3)(o) of llle A.li*yratiorz (Review)

Regrrltrirotls J Y 8 9 pro1,rderl or nrl crpplicor~l for nrz erllrv per7nit rrlay

crppls to life nrblrrrnl [or re~~iell, of n rlecisiorl lo refi~se (IPZ erllry perrrzii

zb	1,11icr nlin, "tile a/>plrcnr1t wns lalvfullv ~reserzi	uz Azrslrnlia wlzerz he
or SIZC	1od.ced ilze u~~~~licallor~."	(ernpkosi.r orlded)
I3y .S I4 of 111e Acl, or1 errlerirrg A~rslrnlio,	o rzor~-crllzer~	6econle.r nrl

rlleg(z1 ~ / I I ~ ( I I I I l11~1e.r.~

((I) he or ,s/1e i\ llolrler of 11 vcrl~d ~I I I / ) J permit .

By s 14(3), c1 rlorl-crirzerl wlro 1.r rhe Izolda of a vrrlld errfry pe17nrl "11ccorlle.r orz rllegc~l errncrrzl LS lze or .\lie stop, beirzg ille l~oldcr of n

11crllrl erllr), pcrnlil 1t~11tle ze or .\he is 111 Aurlralro "

By 3 33(l)(c) of ilze Act, ilte reg~rln~ioris rilny r~inke provi\zorl irz

relrizor~	lo rile efrecr nrld opcrciiroiz of erlrry pernliir
AI rricrterinl iir?le.s, 1))' reg 24(I)(d), I/ ~ n s	prolitled 111ni nrz erziry

perti~rl gnr~led l~y llle i?lirz~.sier t~rzrle~ S 3.1 or ilze Aci, irz ille case of n

Rcgi.fi"lflrror1 27(2)(cr) p~o~~lder l ilznt o rolici errtry perrnil "censed ro be

nr force orr rlle ~ X I ) I ~ U / I O I L 01 /lie period ill rc.ipe~l of ~llliclz the er1lgJ

pmiod l t~czs glnrzred "

To t h ~ s explanation it is only necessnry to add a reference to reg 21(4)(a) and (7)(b) of

the M~era t~on (Kevlcwl Reeul;~t~ons, the erfect of wh~ch in tlic present case is that the

second appl~cant. as sponsor. 1s also not ent~tled to apply for rcvlew unless the hrst

appl~cant satlsr~es thc requlrcments ofreg 21(3)(a). It nlay be noted that thesc were thc

provlslons cilccl by the Tr~bunal.

Counsel To1 tlic applicants submits that the first appl~cant was "lawfully present

In Aust~al~a"	when she loclged the ently perlnlt applicat~on	by v~rtue	of s 13 of thc Act,
which p~escrihes	;l "perlod ot gracc" of 28 days for a pelson who, l~lce	the f~rst	applicant,

has become an illegal entrant 111 response, cou~isel for the respo~ident pornts out that

s 13 has nuthlng at all to say about wllethcr a pelson 1s lawtully prescnt rn Austral~a, but

n~crely lntroduccs a ~oncep t that affe~ts an illegal entrant's llab~llty to dcportai~on under

ss 5') and 60 of the Act 1 accept that subni~sslon. The lawlul status o i a non-cit~zcn

cannot ex~st w~thout, and IS a quahty allalng tron~, ilie posscss~o~i of an entry pernut. HIS

or her lawful status is lost as a passwe act th~ough thc expiry ol ari ently permit. The

Tribunal was, 111 111y opin~oii, corrcct The appeal is, accordingly, ~ncompetent as therc

was no revlew by the 'Tr~buni~l.

Notw~thstandlng that thc l ' r~bunal rciused to e n t e ~ t a ~ n the appl~cat~on. it wcnl on

to express a vlew on thc incrit\ ol thc application, hav~ng heard ev~dence from both the

applicants. T h e T~ibl lnal had arrangccl for communicnt~on w ~ t h the first applicant to

proceed through an interpreter T h e appl~cants ~ o m p l a ~ n that part 01 the eviclcnce of the

tlrst appl~cant \\as not accurately lntc~pretecl for the Tr~bunal , and they seck to adduce

ev~clence	of the correct translation of what was s a d 111 Ch~nese	by the first appl~cant o
thc Tribunal	This c o u ~ s e	was opposed bp thc respondent. In view ol' the decision that

I have rcacllcd. ~t IS unncccssary to decicle t h ~ s	illterestlng questlon or the consequences
A .-

that m ~ g h t Llow from the rcccpt~oli of s u ~ h cv~clence.

The appeal 1s disn~~qsed with costs

1 ccitily tbal 1111s ant1 lllc prcccdi~lg t111ee ~~gc.5 ale a

lirle ropy of lhe Rc;~son< T ~ I Jutlgmcnl be in ol thc

Flonourable MI J U S ~ I L > A P Whltlaln P

Assoc~nlc

Dalc 31 Mart11 199.1

Co1111scl fo~ elm npplic.~nl\ A 1 Young

Solicllor\ for lhc applicants	Nea.m:111 CC As~nrlares
C'ouncel for lllc rcspontleol~	Rhoaild Hcndcrsoli
Sollcltor Col the ~csl~ondciil	Austral~nn Govc~nmcnl SOIILI~OI
Ddtc 01 hearing	30 March 1994