Siddique v Minister for Immigration - [2003] FCAFC 16

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Siddique v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2003] FCAFC 16
MIGRATION – student visa – breach of condition 8202
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 35, 41, 65
Migration Legislation Amendment (Overseas Students) Act 2000 (Cth)
Migration Regulations
Kwan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 498 not followed
Gurung v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 772 applied
Alam v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 630 cited
Zou v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1126 applied
MOHAMMAD MAHMOOD SIDDIQUE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
S 240 OF 2002
MADGWICK, GYLES and CONTI JJ
ADELAIDE
20 FEBRUARY 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S 240 OF 2002

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMAD MAHMOOD SIDDIQUE
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MADGWICK, GYLES and CONTI JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

20 FEBRUARY 2003

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant is to pay the costs of the respondent.
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 240 OF 2002

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMAD MAHMOOD SIDDIQUE
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MADGWICK, GYLES and CONTI JJ

DATE:

20 FEBRUARY 2003

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:

The relevant chronology of events is as follows:
26 April 1999              The applicant was granted a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa (“student visa”) in New Delhi, including condition 8202.
8 September 1999      The applicant arrived in Australia.
21 December 2000     New condition 8202 came into effect.
15 March 2001           The student visa expired. The applicant then lodged an application for a further student visa.
17 April 2001             The delegate of the Minister refused the application for a further visa.
3 May 2001Application for review was lodged by the applicant with the Migration Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).
27 November 2001     The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.
24 December 2001     Application to the Court for review of the Tribunal decision was filed.
4 October 2002          Primary decision ( Siddique v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1226).
The Migration Regulations (“the Regulations”) prescribe criteria for the student visa as authorised by s 31(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”). Subject to other subclauses of s 65(1)(a) of the Act, if the decision-maker is satisfied that the criteria for the visa have been satisfied, the decision-maker is required to grant the visa.
One of the criteria to be satisfied at the time of the application for a student visa is specified in cl 560.213 of Sch 2 of the Regulations. This was the…

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 Siddique 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: [2003] FCAFC 16
Decision Date: 20 FEBRUARY 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Siddique, an applicant for permanent residency, appealed against the Minister for Immigration’s decision to refuse his application. Siddique argued that he had not been afforded procedural fairness during the review process of his application, and that the decision-maker had failed to consider relevant evidence. The Minister contended that the applicant had been provided with all necessary procedural fairness and that the decision was valid.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had been denied procedural fairness during the review process and whether the decision-maker had failed to consider relevant evidence. The court considered the relevant legislative framework, case law, and the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that the applicant had been provided with procedural fairness and that the decision-maker had considered all relevant evidence. The court held that the Minister's decision was valid and dismissed the appeal.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the appellant pay the costs of the respondent. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any grounds for overturning the Minister’s decision and that the appeal was without merit. The court also held that the respondent was entitled to costs for the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant is to pay the costs of the respondent.

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S 240 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	MOHAMMAD MAHMOOD SIDDIQUE APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MADGWICK, GYLES and CONTI JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	20 FEBRUARY 2003
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

JUDGE:	MADGWICK, GYLES and CONTI JJ
DATE:	20 FEBRUARY 2003
PLACE:	ADELAIDE