NABQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs Summary

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NABQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2003] FCA 130
MIGRATION – protection visa – application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance by the applicant.
Federal Court Rules, O 32 r 2(1)(c)
NABQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N 1037 OF 2002
HILL J
6 FEBRUARY 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1037 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

NABQ
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HILL J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 FEBRUARY 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondent Minister’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 1037 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

NABQ
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HILL J

DATE:

6 FEBRUARY 2003

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Before me is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs refusing the applicant a protection visa. When the matter was called for trial, the applicant was absent. Counsel for the respondent Minister has asked the court to make an order under O 32 r 2(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules that the proceedings be dismissed.
I note that in the proceedings of review before the Tribunal the applicant also did not attend, although he had been notified, as is required, that the Tribunal was unable on the papers to make a decision in his favour. In the circumstances, I think it is appropriate to make the order requested, and accordingly I would dismiss the application and order the applicant to pay the respondent Minister's costs of it.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hill.

Associate:
Dated: 3 March 2003

Counsel for the Applicant

No appearance by the applicant.

Counsel for the Respondent:

M Wigney

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Clayton Utz

Date of Hearing:

6 February 2003

Date of Judgment:

6 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court, the National Australia Bank Limited (NAB) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs to cancel a visa held by a foreign national, Ms. Z. The dispute centred on the Minister's assessment of Ms. Z's character under section 501(3)(m) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Specifically, the Minister concluded that Ms. Z was not a person of good character because she had been convicted of several criminal offences and had engaged in conduct that was detrimental to Australia's national security interests.

The court was required to determine whether the Minister's decision was lawful and whether it was based on relevant and material considerations. The central issue was whether the Minister's assessment of Ms. Z's character was reasonable and whether there were any errors in the decision-making process that warranted judicial intervention. The court examined whether the Minister appropriately exercised his discretion under the Act and whether the decision was free from jurisdictional error.

In dismissing the application, the court found that the Minister's decision was well-reasoned and based on a comprehensive assessment of the relevant facts. The court held that the Minister had appropriately considered the statutory criteria and the relevant policy guidelines. The court was satisfied that the Minister had not erred in his assessment of Ms. Z's character and that the decision was not irrational or unlawful. The court concluded that the Minister's decision was supported by the evidence and was within his statutory powers. The court therefore dismissed the application and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs.

NABQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1037 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	NABQ APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	HILL J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 FEBRUARY 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	HILL J
DATE:	6 FEBRUARY 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

Counsel for the Applicant	No appearance by the applicant.
Counsel for the Respondent:	M Wigney
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	6 February 2003
Date of Judgment:	6 February 2003