Rasova v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RASOVA & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2004] FMCA 730

MIGRATION – Review of MRT decision affirming a delegate’s refusal – no grounds.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth); ss 47, 338, 349, 351, 368
High Court Rules 1952; O.55, r.30, O.55, r.17, O.60, r.6

Plaintiff S157 of 2002 v Commonwealth [2003] HCA 2
Hari Das & Anor, Ex parte – Re MIMA & Anor M47/2001 (28 November 2002)
Applicant M216/2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 931
Re Commonwealth of Australia & Anor; Ex parte Marks [2000] HCA 67
Applicant A2 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 576
Batuuwantudawa; Re [2003] FCA 684

First Applicant: MESULAME RASOVA

Second Applicant: PEGGY SOPHIE TIKOTIKOCA

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: MZ 858 of 2003

Delivered on: 3 November 2004

Delivered at: Melbourne

Hearing date: 31 May 2004

Judgment of: Bennett FM

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appearing in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms MacDonnell

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. That the Applications be dismissed. 

2. That the Applicants pay the Respondent’s costs fixed at $6,500. 

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MZ 858 of 2003

MESULAME ROSOVA

First Applicant

And

PEGGY SOPHIE TIKOTIKOCA

Second Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &
MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Mesulame Rasova (the first applicant) has made an application along with another applicant, his spouse Peggy Sophie Tikotikoca, seeking a review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (the MRT) made on 16 June 2000 whereby it was decided that the first applicant is not entitled to a change of circumstance (residence) (class AG) visa, subclass 833. 

Parties

1. There is no issue taken in relation to the number of applicants, which are the first applicant and his spouse, nor is any issue taken with the fact that a number of respondents have been named in the proceedings.  I am satisfied that the first applicant is the appropriate party and that in the proceedings as they now appear before this court it is unnecessary to consider further the validity or otherwise of joining the second respondents who are named as the Migration Review Tribunal and the senior member of the Migration Review Tribunal. 

2. The first applicant appeared in person.  Ms J MacDonnell, of counsel, appeared for the respondent.  The application by the second applicant rises or falls on the same basis as that of the first applicant. 

Proceedings

1. The proceedings before this court originally commenced on 6 August 2002 by way of an application for an Order Nisi in the High Court of Australia in which the first applicant sought writs of prohibition and certiorari.  Those proceedings were transferred to the Federal Court of Australia by order of Hayne J made on 7 February 2003. 

2. By order of Finkelstein J made on 4 August 2003, the proceedings were transferred from the Federal Court of Australia to this court. 

Documents relied…