Mahanusu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2010] FCA 874

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mahanusu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 874

Citation: Mahanusu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 874
Appeal from: Mahanusu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] AATA 457
Parties: MALAKAI NAU MAHANUSU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
File number: NSD 916 of 2010
Judge: MOORE J
Date of judgment: 13 August 2010
Catchwords: MIGRATION LAW – appeal from Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Tribunal affirmed decision of Minister to cancel visa – character test – substantial criminal record – appeal to Federal Court sought only to introduce new evidence – appeal dismissed
Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 501
Date of hearing: 13 August 2010
Date of last submissions: 13 August 2010
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 5
Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant was unrepresented.
Solicitor for the First Respondent: DLA Phillips Fox

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 916 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:

MALAKAI NAU MAHANUSU
Appellant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 AUGUST 2010

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondents’ costs.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 916 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:

MALAKAI NAU MAHANUSU
Appellant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

13 AUGUST 2010

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The proceeding before me purports to be an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) affirming a decision of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to cancel Mr Mahanusu’s visa on character grounds.

  2. The papers filed by the appellant indicate his case is one where he seeks to adduce further evidence about the support he has from his family, and therefore supplement the material that was before the Tribunal and on which the Tribunal made its decision.

  3. I explained to the appellant on an earlier occasion that the jurisdiction of this Court is limited and is, in substance, to investigate alleged legal error on the part of the Tribunal. The Court cannot receive further evidence of the type proposed by the appellant nor undertake a review of the case on its merits.

  4. The appellant has indicated that he will not seek the services of lawyers.

  5. In these circumstances, the appeal as it is framed is dismissed as it is doomed to fail. I order that the appeal be dismissed and the appellant pay the respondents’ costs.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:        13 August 2010

Details
AGLC
Mahanusu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 874
Case
[2010] FCA 874
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mahanusu, appealed a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which upheld the Minister's decision to cancel his visa on the basis that he did not meet the character test required under the Migration Act. The appellant had a substantial criminal record and had previously been deported from Australia. The appeal was brought before the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the appeal could proceed on the basis of new evidence presented by the appellant. The appellant's argument was that the AAT had erred in not considering the new evidence, which he claimed would have affected the outcome of the appeal. The Minister argued that the appeal was not properly before the court because it did not raise any legal errors by the AAT, but rather sought to introduce new evidence that had not been presented before the AAT.

The court held that the appeal was properly before it, but that the appellant had not demonstrated any grounds upon which the AAT had erred in law. The court found that the AAT had considered all relevant evidence before it and had made a decision that was open on the material before it. The court held that the appeal was an attempt to introduce new evidence that had not been presented before the AAT, and that such evidence could not be considered on appeal unless it was material and could not have been adduced before the AAT due to some impediment. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated that the new evidence met these criteria.

The appeal was dismissed and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondents’ costs.

Note:

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.