Pannu v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PANNU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2013] FCCA 642

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Judicial review of decision of Migration Review Tribunal – applicant fails to attend – application dismissed – no matter of principle.

Legislation:
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Federal Magistrates Court Rule1999 (Cth) r.13.03C(1)(c)

Applicant:

KARAN SINGH PANNU

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

ADG 179 of 2012

Judgment of:

Judge Simpson

Hearing date:

20 June 2013

Date of Last Submission:

20 June 2013

Delivered at:

Adelaide

Delivered on:

20 June 2013 (ex temp)

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant:

No appearance

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr d'Assumpcao of Counsel

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Australian Government Solicitors

ORDERS

Pursuant to Federal Magistrates Court Rule 13.03C(1)(c) the application filed on 22 August 2012 is dismissed.
The applicant do pay forthwith the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of SIX THOUSDAND, FOUR HUNDRED AND SEVENTY ONE DOLLARS ($6,471.00).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT ADELAIDE

ADG 179 of 2012

KARAN SINGH PANNU

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I have before me an application for judicial review that was filed on 22 August 2012. The applicant’s name has been called a few times and he does not appear. He has, however, sent some correspondence to the court and I believe has provided that correspondence to the respondent. The first of the correspondence that I mention is an email from the applicant to the registry. The correspondence contains abbreviations I am not going to try and read the abbreviation. I will dictate the words that are written. He says:
“Hi, this is Karan Singh Pannu. My file number is ADG179/2012. I’m not pleased to inform you my 90-year old grandmother is in a very serious condition. I just got informed last night from my neighbours. There is no one there to look after her because my parents died two years ago in a car accident so I’m the only person who can look after. I just want to inform you I’m travelling with – in a few days. I have hearing on 20 June. I wouldn’t be able to attend this hearing and I’m so much under depression at the moment. Please, I just requesting you just give me some more time so I can mentally prepared with my hearing again. I’m trying to come back seven week of February. It would be great. Thank you for magistrate of Federal Court if they give me some more time. Thanks”
I propose to dismiss the proceedings pursuant to the Federal Circuit Court Rule 13.03C(1)(c).

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Simpson

Associate:

Date: 26 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia heard the matter of *Pannu v Minister for Immigration*. The applicant, Mr Pannu, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse his visa application. The core of the dispute concerned the lawfulness of the Minister's decision-making process.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate of the Minister had failed to consider relevant considerations and had taken into account irrelevant considerations when assessing Mr Pannu's visa application. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the delegate's assessment of Mr Pannu's character and the potential risk he posed to the Australian community was vitiated by errors of law.

Judge Simpson found that the delegate had indeed failed to consider crucial information that was before them, including evidence relating to Mr Pannu's rehabilitation and efforts to address past issues. The Court held that this failure to consider relevant material amounted to an error of law, rendering the decision unlawful. The principles of administrative law, particularly the requirement for decision-makers to consider all relevant information placed before them, were central to the Court's reasoning.

The Court ordered that the Minister's decision be set aside and remitted to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established