Multani v Minister for Immigration - [2020] FCCA 155

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MULTANI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2020] FCCA 155

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application to review decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Partner visa – whether the Tribunal failed to consider a matter in reg.1.15A(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) such as to fall into jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.5F, 359A, 360

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), reg.1.15A

Cases cited:

Casey v Repatriation Commission (1995) 39 ALD 34; [1995] FCA 847
He v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 255 FCR 41; [2017] FCAFC 206
Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 264 CLR 123; [2018] HCA 34
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24; [1986] HCA 40
Minister for Home Affairs v Buadromo (2018) 362 ALR 48; [2018] FCAFC 151
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Stretton (2016) 237 FCR 1; [2016] FCAFC 11
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZSRS (2014) 309 ALR 67; [2014] FCAFC 16
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332; [2013] HCA 18
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZGUR (2011) 241 CLR 594; [2011] HCA 1
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611; [2010] HCA 16
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT (2013) 212 FCR 99; [2013] FCA 317
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 325; [2001] HCA 30
Plaintiff M174/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 353 ALR 600; [2018] HCA 16

Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Ex parte Applicant S20/2002 (2003) 77 ALJR 1165; [2003] HCA 30
SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 235 ALR 609; [2007] HCA 26

Applicant:

MANINDERPAL SINGH MULTANI

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent:

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 1529 of 2016

Judgment of:

Judge Barnes

Hearing date:

5 December 2018

Date of Last Submission:

8 February 2019

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

30 January 2020

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant:

In person

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr Kaplan

Solicitors for the Respondents:

DLA Piper

ORDERS

The application is dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1529 of 2016

MANINDERPAL SINGH MULTANI

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background

This is an application for review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal), dated 26 May 2016, affirming a decision of a delegate of the First Respondent not to grant the Applicant a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa.
The Applicant, a citizen of India, applied for a Partner visa on 3 May 2012. He provided some supporting documentation. He was granted a temporary Partner visa on 16 September 2013.
According to the delegate, the Department wrote to Mr Multani’s representative on 4 April 2014 to request further information in relation to his…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Multani 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: [2020] FCCA 155
Decision Date: 30 January 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr. Multani, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning his application for a partner visa. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the AAT had committed jurisdictional error by failing to consider a specific matter stipulated in regulation 1.15A(3) of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the AAT’s decision-making process contained a jurisdictional error. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Tribunal had overlooked or failed to adequately consider a relevant matter under regulation 1.15A(3) of the *Migration Regulations 1994*, which could vitiate its decision.

Judge Barnes dismissed the application, finding that the AAT had not committed jurisdictional error. The Court concluded that the Tribunal had indeed considered the relevant matters as required by the regulations. The reasoning focused on the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence before it and its application of the relevant legal provisions to those facts. The Court was satisfied that the AAT had discharged its obligations under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the associated regulations.

Orders