Jin v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 260

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Jin v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 260

KIM MI JIN & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 141 of 2000
N 142 of 2000
N 143 of 2000

BURCHETT J
24 FEBRUARY 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 141 of 2000 N 142 of 2000 N 143 of 2000

BETWEEN:

KIM MI JIN
First Applicant

CHUN YOUNG HWA
Second Applicant

PARK BOK HEE
Third Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent

JUDGE:	BURCHETT J
DATE:	24 FEBRUARY 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter, I am asked to grant an injunction to restrain the removal from Australia of three young Korean women who arrived yesterday, being recipients, prior to their arrival, of sub-class 976 (electronic travel authority (visitor)) visas.  At the airport, yesterday, it was determined by officers who interviewed them that they did not intend only to visit Australia temporarily for tourism purposes, but rather intended to pursue some activities in what is described by a mealy mouthed expression as the sex industry.  The Minister, pursuant to s 116(1)(g) combined with Migration Regulation 2.43(1)(k), or, alternatively, pursuant to s 116(1)(a), decided to cancel the electronic visas and to have the three women removed from Australia.  Action was taken, pursuant to s 217, to ensure that this removal was effected by the carrier.  The present application has been made at the very last moment; indeed, the plane is due to leave now. 

2. In my opinion, a sufficient case has not been made out for the grant of an injunction to restrain the removal of the applicants.  It is acknowledged that the Department's records, assuming they are correct, show the making of admissions which would confirm the Minister's case.  Although I am assured that the three women would wish to challenge that any of them in fact made any admissions, there is really no evidence before me to cause me to doubt that the admissions on which the Minister relies were made.  The Court, of course, has power to grant an injunction in such a case.  Perhaps the strongest reason to consider doing so is the fact that Mr Levingston, who appears for the three women, was given such extremely short notice of the time of removal.  In some circumstances, that would undoubtedly be sufficient to sway the Court to grant temporary relief, even on evidence that would in any other circumstance be insufficient.  The power was, of course, clearly affirmed in Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Msilanga (1992) 34 FCR 169, but I do not think that a sufficient case has been made out here to call for the exercise of that power. In my opinion, it would not be appropriate to make any such order.

3. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Burchett.

Associate:

Dated:             9 March 2000

Solicitor for the Applicants:	Mr C Levingston of Christopher Levingston & Associates
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mr A Markus of the Australian Government Solicitor’s Office
Date of Hearing:	24 February 2000
Date of Judgment:	24 February 2000