Revollo v Minister for Immigration - [2011] FMCA 899

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REVOLLO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2011] FMCA 899

MIGRATION – Review of Migration Review Tribunal decision – cancellation of temporary spouse visa – where applicant claimed to be victim of domestic violence – where visa cancelled on other grounds – where domestic violence claim not considered by Tribunal – whether domestic violence claim expired – inferences – where no reference to relevant information in Tribunal’s decision – whether Tribunal failed to consider relevant information.

Migration Regulations 1994
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.5F(2)(c), 109(1)(c)

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Khadgi & Anor (2010) 190 FCR 248
Burton v Minister for Immigration [2005] FCA 1455
Maman v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2011] FMCA 426
Gama v Qantas Airways Limited (No. 2) [2006] FMCA 1767
Steed v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 37 ALR 620
Alexander and Others v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority and Others (2010) 265 ALR 424
SZMPT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 99
Craig v South Australia (2005) 184 CLR 163

Applicant:

LUIS ALBERTO ZAMBRANA REVOLLO

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 1323 of 2011

Judgment of:

Raphael FM

Hearing date:

3 November 2011

Date of Last Submission:

11 November 2011

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

25 November 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr N Poynder

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Phillip Silver & Associates

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Ms L Clegg

Solicitors for the First Respondent:

DLA Piper Australia

ORDERS

A writ of certiorari issue directed to the Migration Review Tribunal removing into this Court to be quashed the decision of the Tribunal made on 30 May 2011.
A writ of mandamus be directed to the Second Respondent directing it to reconsider and determine the matter according to law.
First Respondent to pay the Applicant’s costs assessed in the sum of $6,240.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1323 of 2011

LUIS ALBERTO ZAMBRANA REVOLLO

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Mr Revollo is a Bolivian citizen who married Ms Frances Martinez on 2 April 2007 in Bolivia. It was his second marriage. On 5 April 2007 Mr Revollo lodged an application for a sub-class 309/100 spouse visa at the Australian Embassy in Chile. The scheme under which spouse visas are granted is that an application for a sub-class 309 visa is also an application for a sub-class 100 spouse visa, a permanent visa. The sub-class 100 can only be granted after two years have passed since the original application was made. Under Schedule 2 Class 100.221(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)[1] a sub-class 100 visa can only be granted if the applicant is still the “spouse” of the sponsor in a relationship which is genuine and continuing.[2] The exception to this provision is where the relationship has ceased because the visa applicant has suffered domestic violence committed by the sponsoring…

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 Revollo 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: [2011] FMCA 899
Decision Date: 25 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Revollo v Minister for Immigration, the applicant, Revollo, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Migration Review Tribunal. Revollo, an individual whose application for a visa was rejected, challenged the tribunal’s decision on the grounds that it was flawed in law. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, with the court being tasked to determine the validity of the tribunal’s decision and whether it adhered to the principles of natural justice and proper legal procedures.

The central legal issues the court was required to address involved the procedural fairness of the tribunal's decision-making process and the correctness of its interpretation of the relevant immigration laws. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the tribunal properly considered all relevant information, provided adequate reasons for its decision, and whether its decision was free from bias or error. The applicant argued that the tribunal failed to properly consider certain evidence and provided inadequate reasons, thus resulting in a decision that was unjust and should be quashed.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the tribunal indeed erred in its handling of the case. The tribunal failed to properly consider crucial evidence and did not provide adequate reasons for its decision, which undermined the fairness of the process. The court held that these procedural flaws were significant enough to warrant the quashing of the tribunal's decision. The court also noted that the tribunal’s decision was not in accordance with the applicable immigration laws, as it misinterpreted certain provisions. Consequently, the court granted the writ of certiorari to quash the tribunal’s decision and issued a writ of mandamus directing the tribunal to reconsider the matter according to law. Additionally, the court ordered the first respondent to pay the applicant's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

A writ of certiorari issue directed to the Migration Review Tribunal removing into this Court to be quashed the decision of the Tribunal made on 30 May 2011.

A writ of mandamus be directed to the Second Respondent directing it to reconsider and determine the matter according to law.

First Respondent to pay the Applicant’s costs assessed in the sum of $6,240.00.

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.