RUDHRAVARAM v Minister for Immigration

Case

[2014] FCCA 1001

11 April 2014


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RUDHRAVARAM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 1001
Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Review of Migration Review Tribunal – no matter of principle – application dismissed.
Applicant: SAIKIRAN RUDHRAVARAM
First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION
Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File Number: MLG 1535 of 2013
Judgment of: Judge Riethmuller
Hearing date: 11 April 2014
Date of Last Submission: 11 April 2014
Delivered at: Melbourne
Delivered on: 11 April 2014

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: In person
Solicitors for the Applicant:
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Wood
Solicitors for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

  1. The Application filed on 18 September 2013 be dismissed.

  2. The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5,800.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 1535 of 2013

SAIKIRAN RUDHRAVARAM

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(As Revised from Transcript)

  1. This is an application for judicial review of the Migration Review Tribunal.  

  2. The applicant does not allege that the Tribunal made any error. The applicant seeks the exercise of a general discretion to give him another chance to present a case to the Tribunal as he says he was misguided in not presenting his material to the Tribunal on the first occasion.

  3. I do not have any general discretion under the Act with respect to Migration matters. I can only deal with applications for judicial review and the circumstances in which I can make orders are limited by the rules relating to jurisdictional error.

  4. I do not have a power, even if I wished to exercise it, to set aside a decision and give a person a further opportunity to have another hearing before the Tribunal unless the Tribunal have committed a jurisdictional error.

  5. In these circumstances I have no option but to refuse the application.

  6. I therefore dismiss the application.

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

Associate: 

Date:  19 May 2014

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

1

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0