Hussein v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hussein v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1621

MIGRATION – application for family visa – whether main applicant a “special need relative” of an Australian citizen – whether Australian citizen had need of assistance because of “serious circumstances” affecting the citizen – whether Migration Regulations 1994 should be given broad and generous construction in favour of Australian citizens and residents – relevance of effect on Australian citizen resulting from separation of parent from child

WORDS & PHRASES – “special need relative”, “serious circumstances”

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 476(1)(e)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990, Arts 7, 9

Fuduche v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1993) 45 FCR 515, not followed
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teo (1995) 57 FCA 194, followed
Alameddine v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1506, cited

SHAMIMA BI HUSSEIN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N533 OF 1999

EMMETT J

5 NOVEMBER 1999
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 533 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	SHAMIMA BI HUSSEIN Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent
JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 NOVEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed with 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 533 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	SHAMIMA BI HUSSEIN Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	5 NOVEMBER 1999
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicants, Mrs Shamima Bi Hussein and her sons, Atif and Arshad Hussein, lodged combined applications for Family (Residence) (Class AO) visas with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on 29 April 1997.  Those applications were rejected by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on 23 October 1997.  The applicants applied for review of the delegate’s decision to the Migration Internal Review Office (“MIRO”) on 17 November 1997.  The applications were rejected by MIRO on 6 February 1998.  The applicants then applied for review of the decision to the Immigration Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) on 24 February 1998.  On 11 May 1999, the Tribunal confirmed the decision to refuse to grant the visas.

2. The applicants have now applied to this Court for an order of review of the decision of the Tribunal.  The original application specified seven grounds.  When the matter was called on for hearing today, all seven grounds were abandoned and, in lieu of those seven grounds, a new ground was added without objection.

3. That ground is based on section 476(1)(e), namely that the decision involved an error of law, being an error involving an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law or an incorrect application of the law to the facts as found by the person who made the decision. It is…