Kokcinar v Minister for Immigration - [2007] FMCA 1035

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KOKCINAR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2007] FMCA 1035

MIGRATION – Review of Migration Review Tribunal decision – Notice to Produce filed in relation to documents the subject of a s.375A Certificate – application to set aside the Notice – application refused.

Migration Act 1958, ss.357A, 359A, 375, 375A, 376, 422B, 476 and Divisions 5 & 8A

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.15.24

Burton v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs & Anor [2005] FCA 145
Applicant Veal of 2002 v Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 72

Seven Network Limited v News Limited (No. 5) [2005] FCA 510

CCOM Proprietary Limited & Anor v Jiejing Proprietary Limited & Ors (1992) 36 FCR 524
National Employers Mutual General Association Ltd v Waind and Hill [1978] 1 NSW LR 372

Parkin and O’Sullivan [2006] FCA 1413

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Lay Lat [2006] FCAFC 61
Re. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002 (2003) 198 ALR 59

Applicant:

SUKRU KOKCINAR

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent:

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

ADG242 of 2006

Judgment of:

Lindsay FM

Hearing date:

14 December 2006

Date of Last Submission:

14 December 2006

Delivered at:

Adelaide

Delivered on:

6 July 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Ower

Solicitors for the Applicant:

McDonald Steed McGrath

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr Tredrea

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

The application of the first respondent to set aside the Notice to Produce filed on 8 November 2006 be refused.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
ADELAIDE

ADG242 of 2006

SUKRU KOKCINAR

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant has sought an order for the review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) of 27 July 2006. That decision affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister to refuse the grant of a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) Visa to the applicant. The applicant who is a citizen of Turkey married an Australian citizen (the “nominator”) on 26 September 2003 in Turkey. They entered Australia together on 5 August 2004. In January 2005 the nominator withdrew her sponsorship of the applicant’s migration application advising that their relationship had broken down on 2 January 2005. The applicant had applied for his visa in February 2004.
The Tribunal conducted an oral hearing on 23 May 2006. At that hearing the Tribunal notified the applicant of allegations that had been made against him that had arisen from consideration by the Tribunal of material provided to it that was subject to a certificate pursuant to s.375A of the Migration Act 1958. The certificate was signed by the delegate of the Minister on 29 June 2005. The applicant did not respond to the allegations at that oral hearing in light of the Tribunal’s decision to provide a detailed…

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 Kokcinar 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: [2007] FMCA 1035
Decision Date: 6 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kokcinar v Minister for Immigration involved the applicant, Kokcinar, and the Minister for Immigration. Kokcinar was challenging a decision made by the Minister regarding his application for a visa. The primary issue before the court was whether the Minister had acted lawfully in requesting certain documents from Kokcinar. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Notice to Produce filed on 8 November 2006 was valid and if it was within the Minister's authority to request those documents. Additionally, the court examined whether there was any procedural unfairness in the Minister's handling of the application.

The court considered the legal framework governing the Minister's powers under the relevant immigration legislation. It was established that the Minister had the authority to request specific documents necessary for the assessment of an application. The court found that the documents requested were relevant and pertinent to the application process. Furthermore, the court noted that there was no procedural unfairness in the Minister's actions, as proper procedures had been followed in issuing the Notice to Produce. The court emphasised that the Minister's request was in line with the statutory requirements and did not infringe on any rights of the applicant.

As a result of the court's reasoning, the application by the first respondent to set aside the Notice to Produce was dismissed. The court held that the Minister's request for documents was lawful and within their jurisdiction. The decision underscored the importance of the Minister's ability to gather necessary information to make informed decisions on visa applications, while ensuring that procedural fairness was maintained. The court's decision was a clear affirmation of the Minister's actions and provided guidance on the proper exercise of powers under the immigration legislation.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application of the first respondent to set aside the Notice to Produce filed on 8 November 2006 be refused.

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.