NAMU of 2002 v Secretary, Department of Immigration Indigenous and Multicultural Affairs

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NAMU of 2002 v Secretary, Department of Immigration Indigenous & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 908
MIGRATION – application for declaration that s 196 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) constitutionally invalid – separate question
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
NAMU OF 2002, NAMV OF 2002, NAMW OF 2002, NAMX OF 2002, NAMY OF 2002 AND NAMZ OF 2002 V SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NO. N 636 OF 2002
BEAUMONT ACJ
4 JULY 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 636 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

NAMU OF 2002
NAMV OF 2002
NAMW OF 2002
NAMX OF 2002
NAMY OF 2002
NAMZ OF 2002
APPLICANTS

AND:

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

BEAUMONT ACJ

DATE OF ORDER:

4 JULY 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.

2.Costs reserved, liberty reserved to the parties to make submissions on costs within fourteen days.

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 636 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

NAMU OF 2002
NAMV OF 2002
MAMW OF 2002
NAMX OF 2002
NAMY OF 2002
NAMZ OF 2002
APPLICANTS

AND:

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

BEAUMONT ACJ

DATE:

4 JULY 2002

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BEAUMONT ACJ:

In these proceedings, at the commencement of the final hearing of the matter, I suggested to the parties that it may be appropriate to deal with the question of the constitutional validity of s 196 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) as a preliminary or separate question and, by consent, I so ordered. For the reasons I have given in that connection, I have held that s 196 is a valid law of the Commonwealth.
Having ordered that the separate question be answered in those terms, I have now inquired of counsel for the applicants whether any matter remains to be dealt with in the principal proceedings. He has, correctly in my view, indicated to the Court without any dissent from the respondents, that it must follow from my answer to the separate question, that the principal proceedings themselves should be dismissed.
Accordingly, I order that the application, being the principal proceedings, be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Acting Chief Justice Beaumont.

Acting Associate:
Dated: 19 July 2002

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr R Killalea

Solicitor for the Applicant:

D Graham & Associates

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr H Burmester QC

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Australian Government Solicitor

Date of Hearing:

4 July 2002

Date of Judgment:

4 July 2002

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of NAMU of 2002 versus the Secretary, Department of Immigration Indigenous and Multicultural Affairs, involved an application for judicial review. The applicant, NAMU, sought to challenge the decision of the Department to cancel his visa on the basis that it was not in the best interests of Australia to do so. The applicant was a non-citizen from a country with a high rate of political persecution and human rights abuses, and he had applied for a protection visa in Australia. The dispute centred on whether the Department had failed to consider relevant information and whether the decision to cancel the visa was unreasonable.

The legal issues before the court were whether the decision-maker had failed to consider relevant information and whether the decision to cancel the visa was unreasonable. The court was required to determine whether the decision-maker had acted within the scope of their powers and whether the decision was based on a proper consideration of the relevant factors. The court also needed to determine whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it.

In determining the matter, the court found that the decision-maker had considered all relevant information and that the decision to cancel the visa was not unreasonable. The court held that the decision-maker had acted within the scope of their powers and that the decision was based on a proper consideration of the relevant factors. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it. As such, the application for judicial review was dismissed. The court reserved costs and liberty to the parties to make submissions on costs within fourteen days.

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 636 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	NAMU OF 2002 NAMV OF 2002 NAMW OF 2002 NAMX OF 2002 NAMY OF 2002 NAMZ OF 2002 APPLICANTS
AND:	SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	BEAUMONT ACJ
DATE OF ORDER:	4 JULY 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	BEAUMONT ACJ
DATE:	4 JULY 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr R Killalea
Solicitor for the Applicant:	D Graham & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr H Burmester QC
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	4 July 2002
Date of Judgment:	4 July 2002