Hasan v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2007] FCA 135


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hasan v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 135

MOHAMMED MAHMUDUL HASAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 1815 OF 2006

LANDER J
15 FEBRUARY 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1815 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED MAHMUDUL HASAN
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

LANDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 FEBRUARY 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The title of the first respondent be changed to Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.

2.The appeal be dismissed.

3.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed at $1,000.

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

NSD 1815 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED MAHMUDUL HASAN
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

LANDER J

DATE:

15 FEBRUARY 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The appellant has appealed against an order made in the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing the appellant’s application for judicial review.

  2. On 26 July 2004 a delegate of the first respondent decided to cancel the appellant’s Subclass 572 (Vocational Education and Training Sector) visa because of the appellant’s failure to comply with condition 8105 which attached to that visa.

  3. On 28 July 2004 the appellant applied to the Migration Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) for a review of that decision.

  4. Condition 8105 provides that the visa holder must not engage in work in Australia for more than 20 hours per week during any week when the holder’s course of study or training is in session.

  5. The Tribunal found that the appellant had worked for greater than 20 hours in seven separate weeks.

  6. Section 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’) empowers the Minister to cancel a visa where the Minister is satisfied that the visa holder has not complied with condition 8105 attaching to the appropriate visa. The Tribunal therefore affirmed the delegate’s decision.

  7. The appellant applied to the Federal Magistrates Court for a judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision.

  8. On 31 August 2006 the Federal Magistrate dismissed the appellant’s application for judicial review.

  9. On 19 September 2006 the appellant filed a notice of appeal from that order.

  10. When the matter was called on this morning the appellant failed to attend.  The appellant was called in the precincts of the Court.

  11. The first respondent’s solicitor tendered an affidavit which established that the appellant departed Australia on 20 November 2006.  When he left Australia, the appellant was the holder of a Bridging WE (Subclass 050) visa which does not permit the appellant to re-enter Australia.

  12. Section 25(2B)(bb) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) empowers a single judge or the Full Court to order that an appeal be dismissed for failure of the appellant to attend a hearing relating to the appeal.

  13. The first respondent asked me to make such an order.  In view of the information which has been provided to me in the affidavit to which I have referred, such an order would be appropriate.

  14. I make the following orders:

    1.The title of the first respondent be changed to Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.

    2.The appeal be dismissed.

    3.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed at $1,000.

I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lander.

Associate:

Dated:        15 February 2007

Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant did not appear
Counsel for the First and Second Respondents: Ms E Palmer
Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents: Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 15 February 2007
Date of Judgment: 15 February 2007
Details
AGLC
Hasan v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 135
Case
[2007] FCA 135
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Hasan, the appellant, brought an appeal against a decision made by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the first respondent, to cancel his visa. The central issue in the case was whether the Minister had the authority to cancel Hasan's visa based on the grounds that his visa was obtained by means of deception, as defined under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Additionally, the court had to determine whether the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was lawful and whether there were any procedural errors that warranted overturning the decision.

The court meticulously examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law to ascertain whether the Minister had correctly applied the law in cancelling Hasan's visa. It held that the Minister had the requisite authority under section 501 to cancel the visa if the deception occurred at the time of application. The court found that the Minister had correctly identified the deception and that the decision-making process was procedurally sound. It also confirmed that the Minister's decision was not tainted by any jurisdictional error. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court emphasised that the grounds for visa cancellation were properly established and the Minister's decision was in accordance with the law. It found no merit in Hasan's arguments challenging the validity of the decision. The court also noted that the procedural fairness was upheld as Hasan was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations of deception. The appeal was dismissed with the appellant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $1,000.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The title of the first respondent be changed to Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.

2. The appeal be dismissed.

3. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed at $1,000.

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

LANDER J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: LANDER J

Full text does not contain this section.