NBMH v Minister for Immigration - [2006] FMCA 1446

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NBMH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2006] FMCA 1446

MIGRATION –Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – application for protection visa – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed

Migration Act1958 (Cth), ss.422B, 424A

Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510
NABE v MIMIA (No.2) (2004) FCAFC 263
Re: MIMIA Ex-parte Applicant S 20/2002 (2003) 198 ALR 5
Re:MIMIA Ex Parte Durairajasinghan (1999) 168 ALR 407

Applicant:

NBMH

First Respondent:

MINIMSTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number:

SYG2995 of 2005

Judgment of:

Baumann FM

Hearing date:

27 September 2006

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

29 September 2006

REPRESENTATION

Applicant:

Self Represented

Counsel for the Respondents:

Ms Clegg

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

That the Application be dismissed.
That the Applicant pay a contribution to the costs of the First Respondent fixed in the sum of $5000 within 90 days.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2995 of 2005

NBMH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The Applicant is a citizen of the Peoples Republic of China who arrived in Australia on 3 November 2004 and applied for a protection visa (class XA) visa on 13 December 2004. On 10 February 2005 a delegate refused to grant a protection visa and on 15 March 2005 the Applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (“RRT”) for review of that decision.
On 9 August 2005 the learned Member handed down his decision and reasons for affirming the delegate’s decision not to grant a protection visa.

Application for review

The Applicant’s initial Application filed 2 September 2005 was, as I will shortly observe, based on grounds which could generally be described as an attempt by the unrepresented Applicant to re-agitate the merits of the matter. As I sought to carefully explain to the Applicant in the hearing before me, it is not a permissible exercise of this Court’s powers to redetermine the questions of fact which the RRT was required to decide.
It seems, despite failing to observe the time limits imposed by the Order of Registrar McIllhatton on 7 October 2005 to file any Amended Application by 2 December 2005, that after receiving some legal advice the Applicant filed and served an Amended Application for review on or about 19 September 2006. The Minister did not object to the Application proceeding on the basis of the Amended Application and did not seek an adjournment.
For completeness, Ms Clegg for the Minister relied upon her written submissions filed 19 September 2006, drawn in anticipation of the Application being that as originally filed. I agree with the submissions set out at paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Respondents written submissions. To some extent, but in a slightly different form, the Applicant has redrawn the fourth ground of the original application (so for as it relates to the Tribunal’s reliance on the independent…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read NBMH v Minister for Immigration and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] FMCA 1446
Decision Date: 29 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of NBMH v Minister for Immigration arose before the Federal Court of Australia, where the applicant, NBMH, sought a review of the decision of the Minister for Immigration to cancel their visa. The applicant, a non-citizen, had their visa cancelled on the basis of character grounds under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The court was tasked with determining whether the decision to cancel the visa was lawful and whether the applicant's character warranted such a serious outcome.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was lawful under the Migration Act, specifically whether the decision was reasonable and supported by material that justified the interference with the applicant's rights. The court needed to assess whether the decision was made in accordance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, and whether the Minister's decision was supported by relevant and sufficient evidence.

The court, after reviewing the evidence and the relevant legal framework, found that the decision to cancel the visa was both lawful and reasonable. The Minister's decision was based on substantial evidence that the applicant had engaged in conduct that adversely affected their character. The court held that the Minister was entitled to form the view that the applicant's conduct warranted the cancellation of their visa, and that the decision-making process was fair and just. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for judicial review and ordered the applicant to contribute to the costs of the Minister.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Application be dismissed.

That the Applicant pay a contribution to the costs of the First Respondent fixed in the sum of $5000 within 90 days.

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

Full text does not contain this section.