FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Navunisinu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2000] FCA 638JOPE NAVUNISINU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 1446 OF 1999GYLES J
SYDNEY
24 FEBRUARY 2000
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 1446 OF 1999
BETWEEN:
JOPE NAVUNISINU
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER:
24 FEBRUARY 2000
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application is dismissed
2. The applicant to pay the respondent’s costs
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 1446 OF 1999
BETWEEN:
JOPE NAVUNISINU
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
GYLES J
DATE:
24 FEBRUARY 2000
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 13 December 1999 the Migration Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Minister's delegate, refusing to grant to the applicant a Bridging Visa E (Class WE) subclass 050 (Bridging Visa (General)). On 15 December 1999, the applicant filed an application in this Court, and despite the matter having been before the Court on two previous occasions, when directions were given, no grounds have been included in the application.
The applicant has not, today, either sought to amend his application, or to produce any material in support of his case. The document marked Exhibit “A” is not directed to the substance of the application. The applicant points to no reviewable error in the decision of the Tribunal. The solicitor for the respondent submits that there is no reviewable error. It is not my task to comb through the Tribunal decision to find error.
I have read the Tribunal decision in order to familiarise myself with the case. All I can say is that no error presented itself to me. It seems to me that this application is totally without merit. It has involved much public expense and the waste of the time of the court on three separate occasions. The application is dismissed and I order that the applicant pay the costs to the respondent.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles. Associate:
Dated: 15 May 2000
Counsel for the Applicant: Applicant in person Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 24 February 2000 Date of Judgment: 24 February 2000
- AGLC
- Navunisinu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 638
- Case
- [2000] FCA 638
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the relevant provisions of the Migration Act and the applicable case law to determine the scope of the Minister's discretion. The court found that the Minister had exercised his discretion appropriately, taking into account all relevant considerations. The court held that the decision to cancel the visa was not unreasonable, as the Minister had considered the applicant's criminal history and the potential risk to public safety. The court also noted that the Minister had the authority to cancel a visa if he believed it was in the national interest to do so.
As a result, the court dismissed the application for judicial review and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs. The court concluded that the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was lawful and that the applicant had not demonstrated any error in the Minister's exercise of discretion. The court found that the Minister had acted within his statutory powers and that the decision was not so unreasonable as to be unjust.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.The application is dismissed
2. The applicant to pay the respondent’s costs
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
Established by: GYLES J
Full text does not contain this section.