Salim v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1347

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Salim v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1347

MOHAMMED SALIM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 899 of 2000

BURCHETT J
13 SEPTEMBER 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 899 of 2000

BETWEEN:	MOHAMMED SALIM Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	BURCHETT J
DATE:	13 SEPTEMBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter, the Court has been presented with consent orders for the setting aside of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal and remittal of the matter for reconsideration by a differently constituted Tribunal, with no order as to costs.  The Court directed that the matter be listed for mention, because the form of orders gives no indication of the nature of the error of law which led to the Minister consenting to the decision being set aside and remitted for reconsideration.  That is an important matter, in order to avoid misunderstanding at any further hearing.

2. The application has now been mentioned, and my attention has been directed to one aspect of it, in particular, which concerned the Minister, namely, the assumption that a risk factor referred to in the Government Gazette of 26 May 1999 in relation to certain applicants from Bangladesh applied to this applicant.  In fact, the Tribunal appears to have overlooked the fact that the risk factor referred to in that Government Gazette was relevantly limited to males between the ages of 25 and 39 years. 

3. It is apparent, on the face of the Tribunal's decision, that the visa applicant did not fall within this group.  That alone, plainly, would justify the setting aside of the decision.  At the same time, I should draw attention to the fact that the formulation of the decision, even if the risk factor were applicable, misstates the relevant criteria.  The Tribunal says in paragraph 15 of its decision:

   “I am not satisfied that the visa applicant will return to Bangladesh after his visit to Australia.”

   That simply does not accurately reflect the question that was before the Tribunal. 

4. For these reasons, I consider it appropriate that I should make orders in terms of the short minutes previously submitted, which bear the date 7 September 2000.  I will alter that to 13 September in ink, and I initial those short minutes, and make orders in accordance with them.  They will be placed with the papers.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Burchett.

Associate:

Dated:             21 September 2000

There was no appearance for the Applicant
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mr Cranwell of Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	13 September 2000
Date of Judgment:	13 September 2000