Poovaiah v Minister for Immigration

[2015] FCCA 515

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

POOVAIAH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2015] FCCA 515

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal – applicant agrees that Tribunal made no error – order made by consent that application be dismissed.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.44.12(1)(a)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Applicant: PRABHU JOSHUA POOVAIAH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: ADG 206 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Simpson

Hearing date: 9 February 2015

Date of Last Submission: 9 February 2015

Delivered at: Adelaide

Delivered on: 9 February 2015 (ex parte)

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: In person

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr K Tredrea

Solicitors for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

ORDERS

1. By consent, the application filed 11 June 2014 is dismissed pursuant to r.44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. The applicant do pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of THREE THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED AND SIXTEEN DOLLARS ($3,416.00).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ADELAIDE

ADG 206 of 2014

PRABHU JOSHUA POOVAIAH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Settled from transcript)

1. I have before me an application for judicial review filed by the applicant on 11 June 2014.  The application seeks review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal made on 9 May 2014 (incorrectly described in the application filed as a decision made on 13 May 2014).  The decision of the Tribunal affirmed a decision of the Delegate not to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) Subclass 485 (Skilled Graduate) visa as the applicant did not have evidence of satisfactory completion of an IELTS[1] prior to filing the application.

   [1]     International English Language Test System.

2. The application seeks an order that the decision of the Tribunal be quashed.  The grounds of the application are as follows:

   “1.I applied for Skilled (Provisional) (class VC) subclass 485 (Skilled-Graduate) visa on 13/03/2013 which was refused on 18/10/2013 because I could not provide IELTS result but I was giving IELTS test regularly to achieve desired results.  But my request for giving me extension was refused by the Migration Review Tribunal on 13/05/2014.  I want to now put application with court so that my case can be heard and I can get the opportunity to provide required IELTS results of 6 each.”

3. The applicant is a citizen of India.  Ironically, given the reason for his inability to get a visa, he presented as having good language skills and did not need an interpreter.  After the matter was called on, I invited the applicant to put any submissions to me that he wished.  He had no submissions to make.  He indicated that he had no criticism of the Tribunal.  He simply wanted, “… some more time because presently I am working a (sic) different place, and they’re ready to sponsor me, and I need some more time for me to apply for my RSMS.” 

4. After further discussion, during which I indicated that although I had an open mind to the matter, I had examined the material and been unable to find a jurisdictional error, the applicant indicated that he consented to the Court making an order that his application be dismissed.

5. As orders were made by consent, and I was satisfied that the applicant understood the consequences of such orders, I considered it unnecessary to give detailed reasons.

6. The following orders were made:

   “1.By consent, the application filed 11 June 2014 is dismissed pursuant to r.44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules (Cth) 2001.

   2.The applicant do pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of THREE THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED AND SIXTEEN DOLLARS ($3,416.00).”

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Simpson

Associate: 

Date:  10 March 2015