Iqbal v Minister for Immigration
[2006] FMCA 453
•21 February 2006
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| IQBAL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2006] FMCA 453 |
| MIGRATION – Spouse visa – relationship of husband and wife not existing at time of decision – show cause application – applicant not qualified for visa on admitted facts – application for show cause order refused. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 |
| Applicant: | MUHAMMAD QAMMAR IQBAL |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | MLG 1601 of 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Phipps FM |
| Hearing date: | 21 February 2006 |
| Date of Last Submission: | Nil |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 21 February 2006 |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant appeared on his own behalf |
| Solicitor for the Respondent: | Ms O'Regan |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The application for a show-cause order under order 44 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 is refused.
The applicant pay the respondent's costs fixed at $2,500.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 1601 of 2005
| MUHAMMAD QAMMAR IQBAL |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application under r.44 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 for the first respondent to show cause in relation to a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal dated 21 November 2005. The applicant applied for a permanent spouse visa, that is, a subclause 801 visa. The application was rejected by the minister's delegate and that rejection was confirmed by the tribunal.
The application for review was filed in this Court on 12 December 2005 so it is subject to the Migration Rules. The grounds for the application which are set out are non-specific.
The applicant came to Australia on a student visa and then married an Australian citizen and therefore obtained a temporary visa and applied for a permanent visa. At the time the tribunal made its decision, the relationship between the applicant and the nominating spouse had ceased. That was acknowledged by the applicant to the tribunal. The requirements for obtaining a permanent spouse visa are complex but for current purposes, it is sufficient to say that clause 801.221(2) requires that the relationship of husband and wife existed at the time of the decision by the tribunal. Exceptions to that requirement are if the applicant or a dependent child has suffered domestic violence committed by the nominator or that the applicant has custody or access in respect of a child of the relationship. None of those are an issue in this case.
Consequently, it is clear on the facts admitted by the applicant that he does not qualify for the visa. The applicant puts a number of matters which go to the fairness of that situation, but they are not matters either the tribunal or the Court can take into account.
In terms of procedures, there is nothing to suggest any breach of required procedures by the tribunal or that the applicant was not given an opportunity to put his case. The applicant has put to the Court that he would like the opportunity to try and get some legal advice. The application was filed on 12 December 2005. He says he has seen some lawyers. In the circumstances where no grounds to show cause have been shown, the application is refused.
I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Phipps FM
Associate: Sherryn Kwong
Date:
0
0
1