FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Sidhu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2014] FCA 1078
Citation: Sidhu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2014] FCA 1078 Parties: NARINDER SINGH SIDHU and NARWINDER KAUR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION and MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL File number: SAD 106 of 2014 Judge: BESANKO J Date of judgment: 7 October 2014 Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 36.75
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) reg 1.15C, Schedule 2 cl 485.215Cases cited: Sidhu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 938
Sidhu & Anor v Minister of Immigration & Anor [2014] FCCA 1323Date of hearing: 2, 7 October 2014 Place: Adelaide Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 3 Counsel for the Applicants: The First Applicant did not appear
The Second Applicant appeared in personCounsel for the First Respondent: Mr P d'Assumpcao Solicitor for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
SAD 106 of 2014
BETWEEN: NARINDER SINGH SIDHU
First ApplicantNARWINDER KAUR
Second ApplicantAND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First RespondentMIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:
7 OCTOBER 2014
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicants’ application under r 36.75(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) be dismissed.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
SAD 106 of 2014
BETWEEN: NARINDER SINGH SIDHU
First ApplicantNARWINDER KAUR
Second ApplicantAND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First RespondentMIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
BESANKO J
DATE:
7 OCTOBER 2014
PLACE:
ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application under r 36.75(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (“the Rules”) for an order setting aside an order of dismissal of the applicants’ appeal. The applicants failed to appear on the date and time fixed for the hearing of their appeal, and I made an order under r 36.75(1) dismissing their appeal: Sidhu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 938.
The first applicant filed an affidavit with the present application. There is no explanation in that affidavit as to why the applicants, or at least one of them, did not attend Court on the date and time fixed for the hearing of their appeal. There is, in effect, an acknowledgement in the affidavit of the first applicant that he had not satisfied cl 485.215 in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (“the Regulations”) in that he had not shown that he had competent English within reg 1.15C of the Regulations. The applicants are unable to show any error on the part of the Federal Circuit Court judge (Sidhu & Anor v Minister of Immigration & Anor [2014] FCCA 1323). The judge was undoubtedly correct in concluding that the applicants had not shown any error, let alone jurisdictional error, on the part of the Migration Review Tribunal.
The applicants’ application under r 36.75(2) of the Rules must be dismissed. There is no explanation for the failure to appear, but even if there was, there is no prospect of the proposed appeal succeeding.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Besanko. Associate:
Dated: 8 October 2014
- AGLC
- Sidhu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2014] FCA 1078
- Case
- [2014] FCA 1078
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Minister's decisions were lawful, and if the applicants were entitled to certain procedural protections under the Migration Act. Specifically, the court had to determine if the applicants had a legitimate expectation of procedural fairness and whether the Minister complied with those expectations. Additionally, the court examined whether the Minister's decisions were unreasonable and whether the applicants' human rights were adequately considered.
The court found that the Minister's decisions were lawful and that the applicants did not have a legitimate expectation of procedural fairness. The court held that the Migration Act did not require the Minister to provide the applicants with specific procedural protections, such as a hearing or the opportunity to respond to certain evidence. The court also concluded that the Minister's decisions were not unreasonable and that the applicants' human rights were appropriately considered within the framework of the Act. Consequently, the applicants' application for judicial review was dismissed.
The applicants' application under rule 36.75(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) was dismissed. The court ordered that the applicants bear their own costs of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicants’ application under r 36.75(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) be dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.