Nabati v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 915

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Nabati v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 915

AKARIVA NABATI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &
MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 937 OF 2001

EMMETT J
27 JUNE 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 937 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	AKARIVA NABATI APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	27 JUNE 2001
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 937 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	AKARIVA NABATI APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	27 JUNE 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a national of Fiji.  By application filed on 15 June 2001 he sought an order of review by the Court of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 18 May 2001.  When the matter was called on for hearing today, there was no appearance for the applicant.  The respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (“the Minister”), seeks an order under Order 10 Rule 3(2), that the application be dismissed.  That rule provides that if no applicant appears before the Court on a directions hearing, the Court may dismiss the application, or make any other order which it thinks proper. 

2. By letter received by the Minister on 17 April 2001, the applicant made a request to the Minister for the exercise of the discretion conferred on the Minister under s 417 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). On 26 April 2001, the applicant applied for a bridging E visa pending the Minister’s decision on that request. A delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa on 7 May 2001. The applicant then lodged an application for review to the Tribunal on 9 May 2001. The decision of the Tribunal made on 18 May 2001 is the decision made on that application.

3. The Tribunal found that the applicant satisfied certain criteria specified in the Migration Regulations for the grant of a bridging visa. The Tribunal’s decision was that the matter should be remitted to the Minister for reconsideration, with directions that the applicant met certain of the criteria for the ground of a bridging visa.  The Tribunal also remitted to the decision of the delegate the question of security.  The Tribunal considered that a fair and appropriate amount of security to be imposed was $10,000. 

4. However, on 12 June 2001, before the delegate had considered the matter again, the Minister declined to exercise the discretion under s 417. The applicant was then removed from Australia, pursuant to s 198 of the Migration Act on 19 June 2001. That explains his non-appearance.

5. The application to this Court for an order of review discloses no grounds within s 476 of the Migration Act. The grounds stated in the application are as follows:

   “1.      As I have a son who was born here in Australia, it would be disaster to dislodge him from this country, which he know that this is the country that he belong.

   2.        As you know about the situation back in Fiji, it would be difficult for me to find a secure job to support my family.”

   Those grounds would not be grounds even if there were a merits review of the decision concerning the bridging visa.  I consider that the appropriate order to make in the circumstances is that the application be dismissed with costs.

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

Associate:

Dated:             16 July 2001

Counsel for the Applicant:	No appearance
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	27 June 2001
Date of Judgment:	27 June 2001