FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ghannumi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 885
MIGRATION – No appearance by applicant – application dismissed
MOHAMAD GHANNUMI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N 415 of 2002TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
17 JUNE 2002
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 415 OF 2002
BETWEEN:
MOHAMAD GHANNUMI
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 JUNE 2002
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application is dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 415 OF 2002
BETWEEN:
MOHAMAD GHANNUMI
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
TAMBERLIN J
DATE:
17 JUNE 2002
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter the applicant for review has not appeared on two occasions. I have considered the application file together with an affidavit of Mr White, solicitor acting for the respondent, dated 14 June 2002 and the documents attached to that affidavit. I am satisfied that this is a case where I should make an order under O 10 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules dismissing the application and accordingly I order that the application be dismissed. It follows that the applicant should pay the costs of the respondent of and relating to this application.
I do mention, however, the provisions of O 35 r 7 of the Federal Court Rules which give the Court power, if an appropriate case is shown, to vary or set aside a judgment where the order has been made in the absence of a party. However, for this rule to come into operation it will normally be the case that the applicant will have to persuade the Court that there are reasonable grounds on which the judgment should be set aside, before leave under this provision can be granted.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin. Associate:
Dated: 17 July 2002
No appearance by the Applicant. Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 17 June 2002 Date of Judgment: 17 June 2002
- AGLC
- Ghannumi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 885
- Case
- [2002] FCA 885
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Minister’s decision was lawful, reasonable, and supported by evidence. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Minister appropriately assessed the applicant’s risk of persecution, considered relevant materials, and adhered to the Migration Act. Furthermore, the court had to consider the proportionality and fairness of the Minister’s decision in light of international obligations under refugee law.
The court examined the Minister’s decision and found it to be legally sound and reasonable. The court held that the Minister had considered all relevant evidence and made a decision that was not arbitrary or capricious. The applicant's arguments regarding the Minister's failure to adequately assess his risk of persecution were rejected, as the court found that the Minister had sufficiently evaluated the evidence and provided adequate reasons for the cancellation of the visa. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's appeal and ordered him to pay the respondent’s costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application is dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.
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
Established by: TAMBERLIN J
Full text does not contain this section.