Lobo v Minister for Immigration

Link copied
Case Copied 30 min read

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

  1. The application be dismissed.

  2. 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
RITISHKA LOBO

Applicants

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &
MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The proceedings

  1. 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

  1. 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2005] FMCA 1024
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lobo sought judicial review of the decision of the Minister for Immigration to refuse his application for a visa. The Federal Court was required to consider the Minister's decision and determine whether it was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The court examined the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles, including the Migration Act and relevant case law. The court found that the Minister's decision was based on a reasonable and lawful interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act, and that the process followed was procedurally fair. The applicant's arguments did not demonstrate that the decision was flawed. Accordingly, the court dismissed the application and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs.

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.