FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NBDN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1777
NBDN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N478 OF 2004
EMMETT J
30 APRIL 2004
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N478 OF 2004
BETWEEN:
NBDN
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
30 APRIL 2004
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed pursuant to Order 10 rule 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules.
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
N478 OF 2004
BETWEEN:
NBDN
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE:
30 APRIL 2004
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 6 April 2004, an application was filed claiming relief pursuant to s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The application refers to the applicant being notified of a decision on 16 February 2004. The application does not disclose the nature of the decision in question, although it can reasonably be assumed to have been a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), since there is reference to that body in the claims. The application discloses no grounds for relief, and was not supported by an affidavit as required by the Federal Court Rules.
When the matter was called on for directions today, there was no appearance for the applicant. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (‘the Minister’) therefore asks that the matter be dismissed pursuant to O 10 r 3(2) (now repealed). In the circumstances, it is appropriate to accede to the Minister’s application.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett. Associate:
Dated: 25 January 2005
No appearance for the Applicant: Solicitor for the Respondent: Z Chami, Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 30 April 2004 Date of Judgment: 30 April 2004
- AGLC
- NBDN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1777
- Case
- [2004] FCA 1777
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's representations to the respondent amounted to misleading or false representations under the Migration Act, and if the Minister's decision was lawful and supported by appropriate evidence. The court needed to assess the accuracy of the applicant's statements and determine whether the decision to cancel the visa was within the Minister's legal authority and based on reasonable grounds.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the applicant had indeed made misleading or false representations to the Minister. The court examined the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the representations, concluding that the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was justified. The court determined that the decision was lawful, as it was based on a proper consideration of the relevant facts and the applicant's misleading conduct. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed pursuant to Order 10 rule 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules.
2. The applicant 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: EMMETT J
Full text does not contain this section.