HAQUE v Minister for Immigration - [2006] FMCA 55

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HAQUE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2006] FMCA 55

MIGRATION – Student Visa – review of Migration Review Tribunal decision refusing to accept application filed out of time – whether error of law.

Migration Act 1958, ss.5, 66(1), 338(2), 347(1)(b), 348, 494B(4), 494C(4)
Migration Regulations 1994, sub-reg.2.16(3), para.4.10(1)(a)
Acts Interpretation Act 1901, s.36(1)
Public Holidays Act 1993 (Vic), ss.6, 7, 8

Lee v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 305
Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 92 FCR 557
Al Chaar v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 941
Wang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997) 71 FCR 386

Applicant:

DALIA HAQUE

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Second Respondent:

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

MLG 231 of 2005

Judgment of:

McInnis FM

Hearing date:

5 October 2005

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

31 January 2006

REPRESENTATION

Applicant:

In person

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr. R. Knowles

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

The Application filed 28 February 2005 be dismissed.
The Applicant shall pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,500.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLG 231 of 2005

DALIA HAQUE

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

And

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

By an application filed 28 February 2005, the Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision made by the Migration Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) dated 1 February 2005.
In a letter dated 3 February 2005 (Court Book page 42) advice was given to the Applicant's authorised recipient that an application received by the Tribunal on 21 January 2005 seeking review of a delegate’s decision was not accepted or considered as it was received outside the time limit for making an application.
The application filed in this Court seeks judicial review in relation to the decision of the Tribunal refusing to accept an application pursuant to the Migration Act 1958 (“the Act”) against a decision of a delegate of the First Respondent made on 17 December 2004. The delegate's decision had refused to grant the Applicant a student visa.
The Applicant who is a citizen of Bangladesh, had lodged with the First Respondent's Department an application for a student visa on 15 November 2004. The delegate's decision refusing to grant the student visa was forwarded to the Applicant by letter dated 17 December 2004. The decision record itself is dated 17 December 2004.
In the letter dated 17 December 2004, the Applicant in part was advised as follows:-
“The application has been refused. The reasons for the decision are explained in the attached decision record.
If you disagree with the decision you may apply for it to be reviewed by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT). Please note that, if you decide to exercise this right of review, you must lodge a review application with the MRT no…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read HAQUE v Minister for Immigration and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] FMCA 55
Decision Date: 31 January 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Haque v Minister for Immigration involves an application made by Mr Haque, a Bangladeshi national, seeking to challenge the Minister for Immigration's decision to cancel his visa. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Mr Haque argued that the Minister's decision was unlawful due to procedural errors and that he had a valid claim for a protection visa. The Minister, represented by the Commonwealth, contended that the decision was made correctly and in accordance with the law, and that Mr Haque did not qualify for a protection visa.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Minister's decision was lawful and whether Mr Haque was entitled to a protection visa. The court had to consider the statutory framework governing visa cancellation and the procedural fairness requirements under the Migration Act. Additionally, the court needed to assess Mr Haque's eligibility for a protection visa based on the evidence presented.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the Minister's decision to cancel Mr Haque's visa was valid and not tainted by procedural errors. The court held that the Minister had followed the correct procedures and that there was no basis to interfere with the decision. Regarding the protection visa claim, the court determined that Mr Haque had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim for refugee status. The court found that his claims were not credible and did not meet the threshold for protection under Australian law. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr Haque's application and ordered that he pay the Minister's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application filed 28 February 2005 be dismissed.

The Applicant shall pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,500.00.

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

Full text does not contain this section.