Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1821

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Yorokaturaga v Minister for Immigration &

Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1821

ULAIASI YOROKATURAGA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
& MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 1216 OF 2000

EMMETT J
1 DECEMBER 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1216 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	ULAIASI YOROKATURAGA APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 DECEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1216 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	ULAIASI YOROKATURAGA APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	1 DECEMBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is the first return day of an application from an order of review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) given on 31 October 2000 when the Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a bridging visa to the applicant.  The application to this Court was filed on 14 November 2000.  It specifies no grounds. 

2. The visa applicant entered Australia on 1 September 1996, as the holder of a visitor visa, valid until 1 December 1996.  On 29 November 1996 the visa applicant lodged an application for a protection visa and was subsequently granted a bridging visa.  The protection visa application was refused on 24 March 1997, and the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed that decision on 7 October 1997.  Various other applications were made and refused in the ensuing months. 

3. The application that was the subject of the proceeding before the Tribunal, was for a further bridging visa.  An applicant for such a visa must satisfy the primary criteria set out in the Regulations, both at the date of application and the date of decision.  In its reasons, the Tribunal said that for the application to be successful, the Tribunal must be satisfied that certain criteria had been met.  The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence that the visa applicant met certain of the criteria which were necessary.  The Tribunal therefore affirmed the decision that was made by the delegate.  In the absence of any grounds specified in the application, there appears to be no error in the Tribunal’s reasoning.

4. When the matter was called on today, there was no appearance for the applicant.  I have been informed by the solicitor for the Minister that the applicant has in fact been removed from Australia.  In the circumstances, the appropriate order is that the application be dismissed with costs. 

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:             19 December 2000

Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mr M Snell for Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	1 December 2000
Date of Judgment:	1 December 2000