FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| HAGER v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2010] FMCA 942 |
| MIGRATION – Delegate’s decision – waiver of visa condition precluding on‑shore visa application – open to delegate to find that applicant’s circumstances not beyond her control and not ‘compelling’ – no jurisdictional error evidenced in minute of recommending officer – application for judicial review dismissed. |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.41, 65, 430, 476 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), reg.2.05, Sch.8, 8503 |
| Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576 El Etri v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2010] FMCA 898 Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 MZXSA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCAFC 123 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Palme (2003) 216 CLR 212 Salazar v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 899 SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152 SZGBRv Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 824 |
| Applicant: | CATALINA BUAN HAGER |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 1757 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Smith FM |
| Hearing date: | 26 November 2010 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 26 November 2010 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr N Dobbie |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Dobbie & Devine Immigration Lawyers |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr T Reilly |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of $4,654.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1757 of 2010
| CATALINA BUAN HAGER |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)
In this judgment, I explain why I have not found jurisdictional error affecting a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 27 July 2010, refusing to waive visa condition 8503 which prevents Mrs Hager from being granted a further substantive visa while she remains in Australia.
Mrs Hager came to Australia in December 2005 on a three month tourist visa, to which was attached visa condition 8503. Soon after her arrival, she was induced to stay and become a carer of an elderly man with dementia. While caring for him, she met his eldest son, with whom she developed a relationship which eventually led to their cohabitation in 2006 or 2007, and their marriage in November 2008. Her husband was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 2007, and she commenced to care for him.
Initially, she appears to have had the support of other members of the Hager family, but relationships broke down in January 2010. A sister of her husband became unhappy about the applicant's care of her brother and assumed responsibility for his personal care, to the exclusion of Mrs Hager. The sister placed Mr Hager in a nursing home, and refused to tell Mrs Hager where he was. In…
Continue reading Hager v Minister for Immigration
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Hager v Minister for Immigration [2010] FMCA 942
- Case
- [2010] FMCA 942
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court of Australia, Hager, the appellant, brought a case against the Minister for Immigration, the respondent, contesting the Minister's decision to refuse her application for a partner visa. The central dispute revolves around whether the Minister's decision-making process complied with the principles of procedural fairness. Specifically, Hager argues that the Minister failed to consider crucial information that was relevant to her application, thereby infringing on her right to a fair hearing.
The court was tasked with determining whether the Minister's handling of the case adhered to the principles of procedural fairness. This involved examining whether the Minister failed to consider material information that was pertinent to the decision-making process. The court also considered whether the Minister's reliance on the Department's assessment was justified and whether this reliance was consistent with the principles of procedural fairness. Furthermore, the court needed to ascertain whether the Minister's decision-making process was tainted by any procedural irregularities that could have prejudiced Hager's case.
The court found that the Minister's decision-making process did not breach the principles of procedural fairness. The court held that the Minister's reliance on the Department's assessment was appropriate and did not preclude the Minister from considering additional information. The court also determined that the Minister had not failed to consider material information that was pertinent to the decision-making process. It was found that the Minister had adequately considered the information presented and had made a reasoned decision. The court concluded that there were no procedural irregularities that prejudiced Hager's case, and thus, the Minister's decision was lawful.
The court dismissed Hager's appeal, affirming the Minister's decision to refuse her application for a partner visa. The court found that the Minister had complied with the principles of procedural fairness and that the decision-making process was sound. The Minister's decision was thus upheld, and Hager's appeal was dismissed.
The court was tasked with determining whether the Minister's handling of the case adhered to the principles of procedural fairness. This involved examining whether the Minister failed to consider material information that was pertinent to the decision-making process. The court also considered whether the Minister's reliance on the Department's assessment was justified and whether this reliance was consistent with the principles of procedural fairness. Furthermore, the court needed to ascertain whether the Minister's decision-making process was tainted by any procedural irregularities that could have prejudiced Hager's case.
The court found that the Minister's decision-making process did not breach the principles of procedural fairness. The court held that the Minister's reliance on the Department's assessment was appropriate and did not preclude the Minister from considering additional information. The court also determined that the Minister had not failed to consider material information that was pertinent to the decision-making process. It was found that the Minister had adequately considered the information presented and had made a reasoned decision. The court concluded that there were no procedural irregularities that prejudiced Hager's case, and thus, the Minister's decision was lawful.
The court dismissed Hager's appeal, affirming the Minister's decision to refuse her application for a partner visa. The court found that the Minister had complied with the principles of procedural fairness and that the decision-making process was sound. The Minister's decision was thus upheld, and Hager's appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
It was submitted that the relevant principle of procedural fairness was identified by Brennan J in a very well known passage in Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 at 629. His Honour referred to a minute which went to the decision-maker in that case and which asserted:22. Mr. Kioa's alleged concern for other Tongan illegal immigrants in Australia and his active involvement with other persons who are seeking to circumvent Australia's immigration laws must be a source of concern.Brennan J held that procedural fairness had been denied due to the failure of the decision-maker to ensure that this allegation had been put to Mr Kioa. His Honour said:Nevertheless in the ordinary case where no problem of confidentiality arises an opportunity should be given to deal with adverse information that is credible, relevant and significant to the decision to be made. It is not sufficient for the repository of the power to endeavour to shut information of that kind out of his mind and to reach a decision without reference to it. Information of that kind creates a real risk of prejudice, albeit subconscious, and it is unfair to deny a person whose interests are likely to be affected by the decision an opportunity to deal with the information. He will be neither consoled nor assured to be told that the prejudicial information was left out of account. The allegation in par. 22 was apparently credible, relevant and damaging. The failure to give Mr. Kioa an opportunity to deal with it before making an order that Mr. and Mrs. Kioa be deported left a risk of prejudice which ought to have been removed. There was nothing in the circumstances of the case — neither in the administrative framework created by the Act nor in any need for secrecy or speed in making the decision — which would have made it unreasonable to have given Mr. and Mrs. Kioa that opportunity. The failure to give Mr. Kioa that opportunity amounts to a non-observance of the principles of natural justice. The result is that the condition governing the power to make the deportation orders was not satisfied and the orders must be set aside. If the Minister chooses to do so, a fresh decision may be made. There is nothing in these reasons which affects the merits of the decision made or of any decision which may be made in the future. (emphasis added) However, in my opinion, the principle explained and applied by Brennan J does not have application in the present circumstances, for several reasons. Essentially, these are the same reasons as were identified by the High Court for rejecting a similar procedural fairness challenge based on the contents of a submission made to the decision-maker in Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Palme (2003) 216 CLR 212 at [16] to [25]. Dealing with the alleged mistakes of fact, I accept the submission of counsel for the Minister that the first, third and fourth alleged mistakes of fact should not be so characterised. Rather, in my opinion, these paragraphs of the submission contain a reasonable and fair summary of the claims and evidence presented to the Department by Mrs Hager and her solicitor.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.