FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| REYES v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2007] FMCA 1721 |
| MIGRATION – Migration Review Tribunal – equivalent of year 12 in Australia – completion of secondary school in the Philippines – case before Tribunal run on the basis that completing secondary school in the Philippines at the age of 18 is the equivalent of completing year 12 – application dismissed. |
| Migration Regulations 1994, Sch.2 cl.101.213 |
| SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2005) 228 CLR 294 |
| Applicant: | DANILO REYES |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | MLG 625 of 2006 |
| Judgment of: | Riley FM |
| Hearing date: | 12 October 2007 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 12 October 2007 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 29 November 2007 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Krohn |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Hymans Solicitors |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Mr Mosley |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The application filed on 15 May 2007 be dismissed.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs, fixed in the sum of $5,000.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 625 of 2006
| DANILO REYES |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
And
| MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Background
The applicant is a citizen of the Philippines. At the age of 23, he applied for a Child Migrant Class AH visa. The applicable criteria at the time of the application were set out in clause 101.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. That clause is as follows:
(1) If the applicant has turned 18:
(a) the applicant:
(i) is not engaged to be married; and
(ii does not have a spouse; and
(iii) has never had a spouse; and
(b) the applicant is not engaged in full‑time work; and
(c)subject to subclause (2), the applicant has, since turning 18, or within 6 months or a reasonable time after completing the equivalent of year 12 in the Australian school system, been undertaking a full‑time course of study at an educational institution leading to the award of a professional, trade or vocational qualification. (emphasis added)
(2)Paragraph (1) (c) does not apply to an applicant who, at the time of making the application, is a dependent child within the meaning of subparagraph (b) (ii) of the definition of dependent child.
All of the issues in this case concern clause 101.213(1)(c), and in particular, the meaning of “the equivalent of year 12 in the Australian school system”. It appears that, in the Philippines, secondary school lasts for four years, rather than six, as in the Australian education system.
The evidence was that the applicant, at the age of 18 years, finished secondary school in April 2000. At that point, he was eligible for college. He commenced an electrician’s course in October 2001. It was a 72 hour course, which he completed in November 2001. Between June 2003 and February 2004, the applicant was enrolled in a…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Reyes 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2007] FMCA 1721
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the Minister's decision was lawful and whether it was made in accordance with the applicable legal standards. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the Minister had considered all relevant information, whether the decision was based on a proper application of the law, and whether the decision was unreasonable in light of the evidence presented. The court also had to consider whether the Minister had acted within his statutory powers and whether the decision was rationally connected to the statutory objectives.
The court found that the Minister's decision was lawful and that the Minister had considered all relevant information. The court held that the decision was rationally connected to the statutory objectives and that it was not unreasonable. The court also found that the Minister had acted within his statutory powers. As a result, Reyes' application for judicial review was dismissed, and the Minister's decision to cancel Reyes' visa was upheld. The court ordered Reyes to pay the Minister's costs, fixed in the sum of $5,000.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The application filed on 15 May 2007 be dismissed.
2.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs, fixed in the sum of $5,000.
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.