SBAV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2002] FCA 1078

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SBAV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCA 1078

SBAV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

S.242 of 2001

MANSFIELD J
13 SEPTEMBER 2002
ADELAIDE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S.242 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

SBAV
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MANSFIELD J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 SEPTEMBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1.The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal given on 11 December 2001 is null and void.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S.242 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

SBAV
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MANSFIELD J

DATE:

13 SEPTEMBER 2002

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to have declared null and void a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) given on 11 December 2001. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent refusing to grant to the applicant a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

  2. The applicant is the 19 year old son of Iranian parents, who themselves applied for a protection visa under the Act on the same day and with the same result.  His 22 year old brother also applied for a protection visa in the same circumstances.

  3. The parties are agreed that the outcome of this application should be the same as the application before the Court under s 39B of the Judiciary Act in which the applicant’s parents and his younger brother is addressed:  SBAU v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1076. I have delivered judgment in that matter today.

  4. For the reasons set out in that judgment, in my view the application should be allowed.

  5. I accordingly declare that the decision of the Tribunal given on 11 December 2001 is null and void.  I give leave to the parties to seek such further or consequential orders as they may be advised.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Mansfield.

Associate:

Dated:             9 September 2002

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms AM Sheehan
Solicitor for the Applicant: Galbally Rolfe
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S Maharaj
Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing: 24 May 2002
Date of Judgment: 13 September 2002
Details
AGLC
SBAV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1078
Case
[2002] FCA 1078
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved the applicant, SBAV, a 19-year-old son of Iranian parents, challenging the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, which affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs, to refuse his application for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958. SBAV's parents and younger brother had also applied for protection visas, with the same outcome. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, South Australia District Registry, with Justice Mansfield presiding.

The legal issue before the court was whether the decision of the Tribunal was null and void, which the applicant argued it was. The court needed to determine if the Tribunal had made an error in its decision that warranted the nullification of its decision. The applicant relied on the same arguments as his parents and younger brother in a similar case before the court, SBAU v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1076.

Justice Mansfield found that the Tribunal's decision was indeed null and void for the same reasons outlined in the earlier case, SBAU. The judge found that the Tribunal had made an error in its decision, and therefore, the decision should be nullified. The judge also allowed the parties to seek further or consequential orders as they deemed necessary.

The court declared the decision of the Tribunal given on 11 December 2001 null and void. The parties were granted leave to seek further or consequential orders as they may be advised.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

MANSFIELD J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MANSFIELD J

Full text does not contain this section.