Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Case [2018] FCA 1903


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1903

Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal: Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCCA 1230
File number: VID 491 of 2018
Judge: MIDDLETON J
Date of judgment: 26 November 2018
Date of publication of reasons: 28 November 2018
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Date of hearing: 26 November 2018
Registry: Victoria
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 8
Counsel for the Applicant: Applicant did not appear
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr O Ciolek
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice, save as to costs

ORDERS

VID 491 of 2018
BETWEEN:

JATINDER SINGH

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MIDDLETON J

DATE OF ORDER:

26 NOVEMBER 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MIDDLETON J:

  1. The applicant is a citizen of India.  He applies for leave to appeal to this Court from the judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, published as Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCCA 1230. The Federal Circuit Court dismissed the applicant’s application by which the applicant sought an order reinstating his proceeding in that Court for judicial review of a decision of the second respondent affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent (the ‘Minister’) to refuse the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) visa.

  2. The applicant had, before applying for reinstatement, filed a notice of discontinuance of his application for judicial review.

  3. The applicant has not filed or served any written outline of his submissions, despite the Registrar directing him to do so by order dated 29 June 2018.

  4. The applicant has applied to this Court for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Circuit Court, on the following grounds:

    1.I have not been treated fairly by FCC and they have dismissed my application. To seek fair outcome my matter and application to be reinstated I would like to request FCC to accept my application and overturn the decision made by FCC to dismiss my application.

    2.Reason I applied for re instatement of application was that I wanted this matter to be heard not dismissed.

    (errors in original)

  5. The application for leave to appeal was brought on before me on 26 November 2018, and there was no appearance by the applicant.  I am satisfied that the applicant has been informed of the fact that this matter would be heard in this Court and at this time, and there has been no communication or explanation given for the applicant’s failure to appear.  I am also satisfied, through the Court process, that the applicant was adequately informed of the place, date and time of the hearing.

  6. The Minister made an application, under r 35.33(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), for an order that the application for leave to appeal to this Court from the judgment of the Federal Circuit Court be dismissed. The Minister also sought an order as to costs against the applicant.

  7. I am satisfied in the circumstances that such an order should be made.  I do not propose to enter into the merits of the matter in these reasons, other than to say that I have had the opportunity of reading the Court file and the judgment of the Federal Circuit Court, and it seems to me that there is no error in the approach taken by that Court.  However, this must necessarily be a tentative view, as I have not had the benefit of hearing submissions by the applicant.

  8. In the circumstances, I will order that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Middleton.

Associate: 

Dated:        28 November 2018

Details
AGLC
Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1903
Case
[2018] FCA 1903
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Singh, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Federal Court that dismissed his appeal against the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection’s decision to cancel his visa. The applicant argued that he was a lawful permanent resident of Australia and that the visa cancellation decision was flawed on several grounds, including procedural unfairness and errors of law. The matter was heard in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues in this case revolved around the interpretation of the Migration Act 1958, particularly the provisions relating to visa cancellation and the procedural fairness owed to visa holders. The court had to determine whether the Minister’s decision was legally sound and whether the applicant had been afforded all necessary procedural protections. Additionally, the court examined whether the applicant's arguments about the visa cancellation process were valid and warranted a departure from the original decision.

The court found that the Minister's decision was correctly made according to the law and that the applicant had not demonstrated any errors warranting a departure from that decision. The court held that the Minister's actions were procedurally fair and did not contravene the Migration Act. It was concluded that the applicant had not provided sufficient grounds to justify overturning the Minister's decision. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs.

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.