NBBR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2004] FCA 777

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NBBR v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2004] FCA 777

NBBR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N176 of 2004

JACOBSON J
9 JUNE 2004
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

 N176 of 2004

BETWEEN:

NBBR
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTRAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON

DATE OF ORDER:

9 JUNE 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The application be dismissed.
  2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding.

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

N176 of 2004

BETWEEN:

NBBR
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTRAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON

DATE:

9 JUNE 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for review under section 39B of the Judiciary Act1903 (Cth) of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 21 January 2004. The RRT affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister made on 20 June 2003 refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa.

  2. When the matter was called on for hearing this morning, the applicant did not appear.  I am satisfied that the applicant was aware that the matter was listed for hearing this morning.  First, the applicant was present in person at a directions hearing on 29 March 2004, when the matter was listed for hearing before me today.  Second, the respondent's solicitors have tendered a copy of a letter dated 3 June 2004, sent to the applicant at the address for service given in the application for review.  The letter reminded the applicant that the matter was listed for hearing today at 10.15 am.

  3. I stood the matter down until 10.35 am, in case the applicant was unavoidably delayed, but when the hearing resumed there was no appearance.

  4. The respondent asks me to dismiss the action pursuant to O 32 r 2(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules.  I am satisfied that in the circumstances it is appropriate to make the order which is sought.  Accordingly, the orders I make are that the application be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson.

Associate:

Dated:            9 June 2004

No appearance for the applicant
Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore (R Leahy)
Date of Hearing: 9 June 2004
Date of Judgment: 9 June 2004
Details
AGLC
NBBR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 777
Case
[2004] FCA 777
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Federal Court of Australia involved an applicant, NBBR, and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. The applicant, seeking to challenge a decision of the Minister to revoke their visa, brought the case before the Court. The central issue was whether the Minister's decision to revoke the visa was lawful and whether the applicant was entitled to any relief from the Court.

The legal issues the Court had to address included whether the Minister's decision was supported by relevant considerations, whether procedural fairness was observed, and if the decision-making process was otherwise lawful. The applicant argued that the Minister's decision was unreasonable and that they had not been given an opportunity to respond to certain allegations. The Minister, on the other hand, maintained that the decision was lawful and based on valid grounds.

The Court found that the Minister's decision was indeed supported by relevant considerations and that procedural fairness had been observed. The Court determined that the Minister had appropriately considered the evidence and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was unreasonable. The Court also held that the applicant was not entitled to any relief from the Court, and therefore dismissed the application. In light of this, the Court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding.

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

JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.