Kiloul v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 175

[2007] HCATrans 175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S301 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

MOHAMED KILOUL

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 27 APRIL 2007, AT 9.34 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of Morocco who applied for a student visa on 30 August 2002. On 1 October 2002 a delegate of the first respondent refused that application because the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of reg 572.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) that he provide evidence of his financial capacity to undertake the course of study without contravening any conditions of the visa relating to work. Under Item 408 of Schedule 5A of the Regulations, the applicant was required to give evidence that he held sufficient funds for at least three months prior to the date of the visa application. Neither the Minister's delegate nor the Migration Review Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant met these criteria, and no element of discretion was involved.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal's decision in the Federal Magistrates Court.  Raphael FM dismissed that application on 24 April 2006 as the Tribunal had committed no error.  An appeal to the Federal Court was likewise dismissed by Tracey J on 7 August 2006.

On 30 August 2006, the applicant filed an application for special leave to appeal to this Court.  On 27 March, the solicitor for the first respondent filed an affidavit in which the deponent stated that the applicant left Australia on 16 February 2007 and has not since returned; and that the bridging visa B that had been granted to the applicant expired on 16 March 2007.  The applicant is not entitled to re-enter Australia unless he applies for and is granted another visa.

In this Court, the applicant has not particularised any error on the Tribunal's behalf, nor is any such error discernable.  There are no prospects of success on any appeal to this Court.  Moreover, any appeal would be futile in light of the applicant's present circumstances.  Special leave is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.

I publish the disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.36 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED