IMPRAPAI v Minister for Immigration - [2005] FMCA 1712

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

IMPRAPAI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

[2005] FMCA 1712

MIGRATION – Application to review decision of delegate of the respondent – whether orders made dismissing application for review in absence of applicant should be set aside.

Migration Act 1958, ss.47, 65
Migration Regulations 1994,
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, rr.16.05, 13.03A(c)

Taylor v Taylor (1979) 143 CLR 1
Lie v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1448

Applicant:

PUNTHIP IMPRAPAI

Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File Number:

SYG252 of 2005

Judgment of:

Barnes FM

Hearing date:

16 November 2005

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

16 November 2005

REPRESENTATION

Applicant:

In Person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Nil

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Phillips Fox

ORDERS

That the application pursuant to rule 16.05 of the Federal Magistrate Court Rules is dismissed.
That the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs set in the amount of $600.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG252 of 2005

IMPRAPAI

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

This is an application filed on 25 October 2005 which I take to be pursuant to Rule 16.05 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules2001 seeking that an order made by this Court on 10 August 2005 dismissing an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the respondent pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 be set aside.
The background to this application is that on 1 September 2003, the applicant applied to the respondent's Department for a Skilled Independent Overseas Student Resident (Class DD) (Subclass 880 visa). On 2 October 2003 a delegate of the respondent wrote to the applicant informing her that the application was invalid because it did not meet the criteria prescribed by Item 1128CA of Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations requiring that she submit satisfactory evidence of having undergone a medical examination from the appropriate health body and evidence of a criminal record check from the Australian Federal Police obtained in the 12 months preceding the application.
The applicant made a further application to the Department for such visa by letter from her migration agent dated 16 October 2003 which was stamped and received 20 October 2003. The letter stated that at the time the applicant decided to lodge her application for residence in Australia “she had sent to the Federal Police for personal check form 1101. Unfortunately, her mail was misplaced. In regarding her health examination, she contacted Health Services Australia for appointment, but she could not get the early date and also she had to postpone (for a reason stated)”. The letter asked the Department to reconsider and accept her application.
By letter dated 23 October 2003 a delegate of the Department notified the applicant that this application was invalid because it did not meet stated criteria in Item 1128CA. Relevantly, there was no evidence of a criminal record check (although it appears that…

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 IMPRAPAI 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: [2005] FMCA 1712
Decision Date: 16 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Imprapai v Minister for Immigration was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant, Imprapai, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration to cancel his visa. The dispute centred around the Minister's assessment of Imprapai's character and whether there were procedural errors in the decision-making process that warranted the cancellation of his visa.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to cancel Imprapai's visa was lawful, particularly focusing on whether the Minister correctly exercised his discretion under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The court had to determine whether the decision-making process complied with the principles of procedural fairness and whether the Minister appropriately considered all relevant information. Additionally, the court examined whether the decision was supported by reasons and whether it was open to the Minister to make the decision based on the evidence presented.

The court found that the Minister's decision to cancel Imprapai's visa was lawful. It held that the Minister had properly exercised his discretion and that the decision-making process complied with the principles of procedural fairness. The court concluded that the Minister had considered all relevant information and that the reasons provided for the decision were adequate. Furthermore, the court determined that the Minister's decision was open to him under the Migration Act, as it was based on a valid and reasonable assessment of Imprapai's character. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the Minister's costs in the amount of $600.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the application pursuant to rule 16.05 of the Federal Magistrate Court Rules is dismissed.

That the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs set in the amount of $600.

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.