Krishnamurthy v MIMIA

[2006] HCATrans 484

[2006] HCATrans 484

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S11 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

AMARNATH MALUR KRISHNAMURTHY

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 5 SEPTEMBER 2006, AT 9.30 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant’s Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa was cancelled by a delegate of the Minister on 21 October 2003.  The decision of the delegate was affirmed by the Migration Review Tribunal on 31 May 2004.  The basis for the cancellation was that the applicant had breached condition 8107 of his visa by changing employer or occupation without written permission from the Secretary of the Department.  The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant was no longer employed by his approved business sponsor and that he was pursuing unrelated business activities in fields other than that of his nominated activity as a computing professional.

The Tribunal made its decision without having invited the applicant to appear before the Tribunal pursuant to s 360 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Tribunal had invited the applicant to comment on information under s 359A but the applicant had not given such comments before the time for giving them had passed. Consequently s 359C(2) applied and the Tribunal was empowered to make a decision on the review without taking any further action to obtain the applicant’s views on the information. In these circumstances, pursuant to s 360(2)(c), that section did not apply and the Tribunal was under no obligation to invite the applicant to appear.

The Federal Magistrates Court dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial review as demonstrating no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.  An application for an extension of time in which to appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Graham J.

The applicant’s written case makes no coherent argument of any error on the part of Graham J, or of jurisdictional error by the Tribunal.  There would be no prospect of success on any appeal to this Court from the Federal Court.  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 Heydon J and myself.

AT 9.32 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED