Khan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2001] FCA 1233


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Khan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1233

MOHAMMED YOUNUS KHAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N959 of 2001

MADGWICK J
20 AUGUST 2001
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N959 of 2001

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED YOUNUS KHAN
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MADGWICK J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 AUGUST 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N959 of 2001

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED YOUNUS KHAN
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MADGWICK J

DATE:

20 AUGUST 2001

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)

HIS HONOUR:

  1. In this matter the applicant seeks the form of judicial review available in this Court in respect of an adverse decision by the Migration Review Tribunal, affirming the decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister refusing him the grant of a “student (temporary) (class TU) visa”.  The applicant has not appeared upon the matter being called for hearing and efforts by my Associate to contact him, on two telephone numbers that he has provided in connection with his application to the court and otherwise, have been unsuccessful.

  2. On the face of it, the submissions filed by counsel for the respondent Minister appear compelling and I see no reason not to invoke the Court’s powers under O 32 r 2(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules, as the respondent asks that I do.  Accordingly, I dismiss the application with costs.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:

Dated:             3 September 2001

No appearance by the Applicant.
Counsel for the Respondent: R Beech-Jones
Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 20 August 2001
Date of Judgment: 20 August 2001
Details
AGLC
Khan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1233
Case
[2001] FCA 1233
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Khan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs involved the applicant, Mr Khan, who sought a review of the decision of the Minister to cancel his visa on the grounds of character. Mr Khan, an Indian national, had been living in Australia for over 20 years and had a family here. The Minister’s decision to cancel Mr Khan’s visa was based on a number of criminal convictions, including charges of assault and drug possession.

The legal issues in this case revolved around whether the Minister had acted lawfully in cancelling Mr Khan’s visa and whether the decision was reasonable. The court had to consider whether the Minister had properly considered all relevant factors, including the nature and circumstances of Mr Khan’s criminal history, his length of residence in Australia, and his family ties.

The court found that the Minister had acted lawfully in cancelling Mr Khan’s visa and that the decision was reasonable. The court noted that Mr Khan had a significant criminal history and that his offending had involved violence and drug-related offences. The court also found that the Minister had properly considered all relevant factors and that the decision was not unreasonable. The court further found that the Minister had not failed to give Mr Khan a reasonable opportunity to be heard and that there was no procedural unfairness in the decision-making process.

The court dismissed Mr Khan’s application and ordered that he pay the Minister’s costs. The court found that the Minister’s decision to cancel Mr Khan’s visa was lawful and reasonable and that there was no basis for the court to interfere with the decision. The court also noted that Mr Khan had failed to establish any grounds for the court to grant him relief.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

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

MADGWICK J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MADGWICK J

Full text does not contain this section.