Nisha v Minister for Immigration - [2005] FMCA 441

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NISHA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

[2005] FMCA 441

MIGRATION – Review of Migration Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa or a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa – no reviewable error – application dismissed.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.359A, 359B(4), 359C, 360, 474
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Sch 2, Cl.820.211(2), 820.221(1), 820.221A

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), ss.13, 15AA

Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (Cth), s.13

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia [2003] HCA 2
Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicants S134/2002 [2003] HCA 1
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163

Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Haque v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2001) 116 FCR 313
NAAV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2002) 123 FCR 298
Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd [1981] AC 251
Lobo v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 168
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601
Pyneboard Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission & Bannerman (1982) 39 ALR 565
Fieldhouse v Commissioner of Taxation (1989) 25 FCR 187
Sun v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FMCA 582
Ramnares v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FMCA 683

Applicant:

MEHRUL NISHA

Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No:

SYG 2619 of 2004

Delivered on:

17 May 2005

Delivered at:

Sydney

Hearing date:

9 March 2005

Judgment of:

Lloyd-Jones FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr M Robinson

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Harish Prasad & Associates

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Mr A Markus of Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

The application is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2619 of 2004

MEHRUL NISHA

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &
MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The proceedings

This is an application for a review of the decision made by the delegate of the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (“the delegate”) made on 19 August 2003 to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa and a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa.
Mrs Mehrul Nisha (the applicant), who claims to be a national of India, born on 6 January 1944 applied for permanent residence on spouse grounds on 13 May 2002. The visa application form completed by the applicant incorporated an application for a permanent visa, a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa, which normally cannot be granted until a period of two years has elapsed since the lodgment of the application, and an application for a temporary visa, a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, which can be granted immediately to permit stay until a…

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 Nisha 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: [2005] FMCA 441
Decision Date: 17 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nisha, an applicant, sought judicial review of the Minister for Immigration's decision to cancel their visa. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the Minister's decision. The primary issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to cancel Nisha's visa was lawful and whether there were any procedural or substantive errors in the decision-making process.

The court examined whether the Minister properly considered all relevant factors and whether the decision was based on valid and legally sufficient grounds. It was also necessary to determine if the process that led to the decision complied with applicable laws and principles of natural justice. The court meticulously reviewed the evidence and submissions from both parties to assess the Minister's adherence to procedural fairness and the correctness of the decision.

In its judgment, the court found that the Minister's decision was both procedurally and substantively sound. The court held that the Minister had appropriately considered all relevant factors and that the decision was made in accordance with the law. Additionally, the court concluded that the process was fair and that there were no errors warranting the quashing of the Minister's decision. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered Nisha to pay the Minister's costs and disbursements associated with the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application.

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.