FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MZWLM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 1057 |
| MIGRATION – Protection Visa – whether jurisdictional error. |
| Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601 VAT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 255 |
| Applicant: | MZWLM |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | MLG 727 of 2004 |
| Judgment of: | McInnis FM |
| Hearing date: | 21 July 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 21 July 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant: | In person |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr. W. S. Mosley |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
That the application filed 10 June 2004 be dismissed.
The Applicant shall pay the Respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $6,500.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 727 of 2004
| MZWLM |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from Transcript)
In this application, the applicant by an amended application seeks review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”) dated 24 November 2000. That decision of the RRT had affirmed a decision of a delegate not to grant to the applicant a protection visa.
The applicant is a 57 year old female Sri Lankan citizen who arrived in Australia on 18 November 1998 as the holder of a visitor visa issued in Hong Kong on 9 October 1998. On 8 December 1998 the applicant applied for a protection visa. On 6 January 1999 a delegate of the respondent determined the applicant was not a person to whom Australia had protection obligations, and refused the application. The applicant then applied on 27 January 1999 to the RRT for review of the delegate's decision. The hearing was conducted on 14 November 2000, and as I indicated earlier in this judgment, by a decision dated 24 November 2000 the RRT affirmed the delegate's decision.
On 24 April 2001, the applicant joined the representative proceedings in the High Court matter of Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601. The applicant subsequently filed an application for writs of prohibition and certiorari with the High Court on 15 May 2003 in relation to the RRT decision. Those proceedings were remitted to the Federal Court of Australia which in turn further remitted the proceedings to the Federal Magistrates Court. I made a decision in relation to the matter refusing the order nisi on 18 March 2004. That decision was the subject of an application for leave to appeal, given it was an interlocutory decision, and that application was refused by order of Crennan J of the Federal Court of Australia on 26 May 2004. On 10 June 2004 the applicant filed the present application for review and relies upon an amended application dated 13 October 2004.
The applicant…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read MZWLM 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2005] FMCA 1057
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the Minister had acted within his statutory powers and whether the decision-making process was procedurally fair. Central to the case was the interpretation of the relevant legislative provisions and the standards of procedural fairness. The court also needed to consider the evidence presented and the reasonableness of the Minister's decision in the context of the applicant's circumstances.
In reaching its decision, the court found that the Minister had acted within his statutory authority and that the decision-making process adhered to procedural fairness. The court was satisfied that the Minister's decision was supported by the evidence and was reasonable in all the circumstances. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs in the sum of $6,500.00.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the application filed 10 June 2004 be dismissed.
2.
The Applicant shall pay the Respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $6,500.00.
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.