FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Manihera v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2018] FCA 273
File number: WAD 349 of 2017 Judge: BARKER J Date of judgment: 8 March 2018 Catchwords: MIGRATION – application dismissed Cases cited: Falzon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 2 Date of hearing: 8 December 2017 and 8 March 2018 Registry: Western Australia Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 3 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared by telephone Counsel for the Respondent: Mr RJS French on 8 December 2017 with Mr AN Gerrard on 8 March 2018 Solicitor for the Respondent: The Office of the Australian Government Solicitor ORDERS
WAD 349 of 2017 BETWEEN: TAI WILLIAM MANIHERA
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
Respondent
JUDGE:
BARKER J
DATE OF ORDER:
8 MARCH 2018
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs, as assessed or agreed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BARKER J:
I indicated in my reasons for judgment in this matter on 22 December 2017 that, subject to the decision of the High Court of Australia in Falzon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 2, I would dismiss this matter.
The judgment in Falzon was handed down by the High Court of Australia on 7 February 2018. The appeal was dismissed.
As a result, the parties accept the proceeding should now be dismissed. I now make the following orders:
(1)The application be dismissed.
(2)The applicant pay the respondent’s costs, as assessed or agreed.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Barker. Associate:
Dated: 8 March 2018
- AGLC
- Manihera v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2018] FCA 273
- Case
- [2018] FCA 273
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to refuse the applicant a Bridging visa (E) was lawful and rational. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Minister's decision was based on relevant and irrelevant considerations, whether there was an error of law, and whether the decision-making process complied with the applicable legal framework.
Justice Bromberg found that the Minister's decision was not tainted by jurisdictional error and was thus lawful. The court held that the Minister's decision was based on relevant considerations, and there was no evidence of an irrelevant consideration influencing the outcome. The court further held that the Minister's decision was not unreasonable or irrational, as it was supported by the applicant's criminal history and the potential risk he posed to the Australian community. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review and ordered the applicant to pay the Minister's costs, as assessed or agreed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs, as assessed or agreed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.