Sidhu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2)

Case [2014] FCA 1078


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 485.215
Cases cited: Sidhu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 938
Sidhu & Anor v Minister of Immigration & Anor [2014] FCCA 1323
Date 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 person
Counsel 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 Applicant

NARWINDER KAUR
Second Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

MIGRATION 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 Applicant

NARWINDER KAUR
Second Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BESANKO J

DATE:

7 OCTOBER 2014

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

Details
AGLC
Sidhu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2014] FCA 1078
Case
[2014] FCA 1078
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Sidhu and others challenged the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection regarding their immigration status and potential deportation. The applicants, primarily asylum seekers and refugees, sought judicial review of the Minister's decisions to cancel their visas and issue removal directions. The applicants argued that the Minister's decisions were unlawful due to alleged procedural unfairness and breaches of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

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.