Ghuman v Minister for Immigration

[2015] FCCA 324

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GHUMAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2015] FCCA 324

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for judicial review – no justiciable complaints set out in application – no written or oral submissions – concession as to no error in the Tribunal.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958

Applicant: AMARJIT SINGH GHUMAN

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: MLG 862 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge McGuire

Hearing date: 10 February 2015

Date of Last Submission: 10 February 2015

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 10 February 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:  In person

Counsel for the Respondents:  Mr Morano

Solicitors for the Respondents:  Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. Within three months of the date of these orders the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs, set in the sum of $3, 416.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 862 of 2014

AMARJIT SINGH GHUMAN

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a somewhat unusual matter. It is an application under the Migration Act filed 8 May 2014 by Mr Ghuman on the face of it seeking a review of the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal of 15 April 2014. The application on its face references three paragraphs. It is handwritten. It is prepared by Mr Ghuman himself, quite clearly. However, on any reading, it does not make any allegation of error in the tribunal. For these reasons, I will recite into them the grounds of the application.

2. Ground 1 simply contains the acronym, IELTS, which references one of the requirements necessary for the granting of the visa sought by Mr Ghuman, but it simply repeats the acronym.

3. The second ground of the application says “MRT refused”, which I take to be Migration Review Tribunal refused.

4. And, thirdly, the applicant says this:  “Time of decision requirement did not scored required score, 120 points, due to my IELTS, which should be seven in each module, and even today I have not scored seven in each.” 

5. So, as I have said, on any reading, that does not disclose any allegation or ground of argument that the tribunal was in error.

6. Mr Ghuman appears in person today and I have asked Mr Ghuman whether he wished to elaborate on his application before the court today.  Mr Ghuman has tried to hand to me a document which I expect purports to be, now his success in obtaining the proficiency qualification that would have interested the tribunal.

7. I went to some length and without challenge from counsel for the Minister to explain to Mr Ghuman that this court does not and cannot provide a third forum for a merits review by him.  Mr Ghuman has accepted that and he then volunteered to me that he, in fact, accepts and understands that the tribunal itself did not make an error on the day in handing down their decision in respect of the material they had before them.  I am grateful for that statement by Mr Ghuman.

8. Given the inadequacies in the application and the lack, in my view, of any actual ground or allegation, and despite that, I have read into evidence the written submissions of counsel for the Minister. They go so far, as the model litigant, to even anticipate countering some argument as to procedural fairness. No argument has been mounted. However, on my reading of those submissions, and with reference to the decisions of the Tribunal, there is no evidence, in my view, of a lack of procedural fairness afforded the applicant in this case.

9. In any event, in my view and I think perhaps with the concession of Mr Ghuman, this application fails on the basis of there being no cause of action, so to speak, in the sense that there is no allegation set out in the application. The application must fail.

10. There will be a further order that within three months of the date of these orders, the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the sum of $3,416. Mr Ghuman himself volunteers the time period for the payment of the respondent’s costs.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge McGuire

Date:  27 February 2015