FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NBJA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1995
NBJA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD2114 OF 2007MOORE J
13 DECEMBER 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD2114 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
NBJA
ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:
13 DECEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the Minister's costs in the sum of $1000.
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
NSD2114 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
NBJA
ApplicantAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentREFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE:
13 DECEMBER 2007
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 27 September 2007 (NBJA v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 1703) , dismissing as an abuse of process an application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 9 July 2007. In that decision the Refugee Review Tribunal determined that it had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister, refusing the applicant a protection visa. It did so on the basis that the Tribunal had earlier heard and determined an application for review, resulting in a decision of 12 August 2004 (N04/48978).
That decision had, in turn, been challenged in the Federal Magistrates Court (NBJA v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2005] FMCA 1759), this Court (NBJA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1245) and the High Court (NBJA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2007] HCATrans 283). It is not apparent to me that the Federal Magistrate erred in dismissing the application as an abuse of process, on the basis that the Tribunal had correctly held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the second application for review. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal, if there be an appeal, is doomed to fail and the appropriate order is to dismiss the application with costs and I so order. I fix those costs in the sum of $1000.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore. Associate:
Dated: 20 December 2007
The applicant appeared in person. Solicitor for the Respondent: DLA Phillips Fox Date of Hearing: 13 December 2007 Date of Judgment: 13 December 2007
- AGLC
- NBJA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1995
- Case
- [2007] FCA 1995
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was lawful and reasonable. The court considered whether the Minister had acted within his powers under the relevant legislation, and whether the decision was based on relevant and material considerations. The court also considered whether the decision was affected by any errors of law or procedural unfairness. The applicant argued that the decision was flawed because it was based on an incorrect interpretation of the relevant legislation, and because the Minister had failed to consider all relevant information.
The court found that the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was lawful and reasonable. The court held that the Minister had acted within his powers under the relevant legislation and that the decision was based on relevant and material considerations. The court rejected the applicant's argument that the decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the legislation, finding that the Minister's interpretation was a reasonable one. The court also found that the decision was not affected by any errors of law or procedural unfairness. The court held that the Minister was entitled to rely on information that was reasonably available to him at the time the decision was made, even if that information was not put forward by the applicant. The court found that the Minister had considered all relevant information and that the decision was therefore lawful and reasonable.
The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the Minister's costs in the sum of $1000. The court held that the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was lawful and reasonable, and that the applicant's challenge to the decision was without merit. The court found that the applicant had not established any grounds for granting leave to appeal, and that an appeal would therefore have no reasonable prospect of success. The court ordered the applicant to pay the Minister's costs, finding that the applicant's application was frivolous and vexatious.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the Minister's costs in the sum of $1000.
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: MOORE J
Full text does not contain this section.