SANGARE v Minister for Immigration - [2019] FCCA 1193

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SANGARE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2019] FCCA 1193

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Partner visa – whether Tribunal failed to consider relevant material – “compelling reasons” – whether decision unreasonable – whether denial of procedural fairness – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.359A, 359A(4)(b) and 360.

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), cls.820.211, 820.211(2)(d), 820.211(2)(d)(i), 820.211(2)(d)(ii) and 820.226 of Part 820 of Schedule 2; cls.3001, 3003 and 3004 of Schedule 3; and PIC 4020(1), PIC 4020(2), PIC 4020(4) and PIC 4021.

Cases cited:

Boakye-Danquah v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 438

Applicant:

SOULEYMANE SANGARE

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent:

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number:

DNG 1 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Heffernan

Hearing date:

17 May 2018

Date of Last Submission:

17 May 2018

Delivered at:

Adelaide

Delivered on:

9 May 2019

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant:

In person, via video link in Darwin

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr Reilly, via video link in Sydney

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Australian Government Solicitors

ORDERS

The Application is dismissed.
The applicant do pay the first respondent’s costs.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ADELAIDE

DNG 1 of 2017

SOULEYMANE SANGARE

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application for a judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) dated 16 January 2017. That decision affirmed an earlier decision of a delegate of the first respondent refusing to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) visa (‘the visa’).
The applicant was self-represented. On 12 May 2017, he filed an Amended Application. The Application proceeded on four amended grounds. For the sake of clarity, I will refer to those grounds with the numbering used in the Amended Application.…

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 SANGARE 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: [2019] FCCA 1193
Decision Date: 9 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Sangare, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, which affirmed a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to refuse his application for a partner visa. The core of the dispute concerned whether the AAT had adequately considered all relevant material presented by the applicant and whether its decision was unreasonable or denied him procedural fairness. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the AAT had failed to consider relevant material in its assessment of the applicant's partner visa application, whether the AAT's decision was so unreasonable that it could not be justified, and whether the applicant had been denied procedural fairness. The applicant contended that the Tribunal had overlooked crucial evidence supporting his claim for a partner visa, thereby rendering its decision flawed.

Judge Heffernan found that the AAT had indeed considered the material before it, including the evidence relating to the applicant's relationship. The Court determined that the AAT's reasoning, which led to the refusal of the visa, was not so unreasonable as to be incapable of justification. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the applicant had been afforded procedural fairness throughout the AAT process. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

Orders