FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| LOBO & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 1024 |
| MIGRATION – Migration Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a Business Skills (Residence) (Class BH) visa – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed. |
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.357A, 359A, 360(2)(b), 474
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), cl 845.216-845.222 of Sch 2, Division 1.4 of Sch 7
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend (1986) 162 CLR 24
Lobo v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 168
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57
Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576
NARV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2003) 133 FCR 89
Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510
Pilbara Aboriginal Land Council Aboriginal Corp Inc v Minister for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Affairs (2000) 103 FCR 539
Re Ruddock; Ex parte Applicant S154/2002 (2003) 201 ALR 437
Vetter v Lake Macquarie City Council (2001) 202 CLR 439
Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Cohen (2001) 177 ALR 473
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
| Applicants: | JOYCE LOBO PHILIP ANDREW LOBO REENA LOBO RITISHKA LOBO |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | SYG2803 of 2004 |
| Delivered on: | 29 July 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Hearing date: | 2 May 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Lloyd-Jones FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr L Karp |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Parish Patience Immigration Lawyers |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr T Reilly |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The application be dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG2803 of 2004
| JOYCE LOBO PHILIP ANDREW LOBO REENA LOBO |
Applicants
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The proceedings
These proceedings were commenced by an application under s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) filed in the Sydney Registry of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia on 13 September 2004 for a review of the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 6 November 2002, affirming the decision of the delegate of the respondent (“the delegate”) made on 8 March 2001 to refuse to grant the applicant a Business Skills (Residence) (Class BH) visa.
Background
On 30 August 1999 Mrs Joyce Lobo, the applicant, a national of India born on 5 December 1951, applied to the Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (“the Department”) under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) for a Business Skills (Residence) (Class BH) visa (Court Book pp.6-95) (“CB”). Included in her application were her husband, Philip Andrew Lobo born on
13 September 1947 and her two daughters, Reena Lobo, born on
20 January 1979 and Ritiksha Lobo, born on 14 December 1985 (the secondary visa applicants). On…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Lobo 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2005] FMCA 1024
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The application be dismissed.
2.
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application.
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.