Sochoroza v Minister for Immigration - [2008] FMCA 1544

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOCHOROZA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2008] FMCA 1544

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Application seeking financial remedy under s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 – claim for damages as a result of delays in processing permanent residency visa.

Migration Act 1958, s.476
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act1986, s.46PH(2)
Federal Magistrates Act1999, s.18

Applicant:

TEREZIE SOCHOROZA

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

BRG 514 of 2008

Judgment of:

Jarrett FM

Hearing date:

9 September 2008

Date of Last Submission:

9 September 2008

Delivered at:

Cairns

Delivered on:

9 September 2008

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person by her friend Mr Moder

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Mr Pack

Solicitors for the First Respondent:

Clayton Utz

Solicitor for the Second Respondent:

Mr McIntyre

Counsel for the Second Respondent:

DLA Phillips Fox

ORDERS

That the application filed 1 August, 2008 be dismissed.
That the applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in sum of $1,000.00.
That the applicant pay the second respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1,000.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
CAIRNS

BRG 514 of 2008

TEREZIE SOCHOROZA

Applicant

And

MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ex tempore

This application was filed on 1 August 2008. The application is headed "Application under Migration Act Rule 44.05". In the application the applicant applies for an order that the respondents show cause why a remedy should not be granted in exercise of the Court's jurisdiction under s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 in respect of certain decisions that are specified in the application.
The applicant appeared this morning represented by her brother who was, according to the documents before me, responsible for the completion of the relevant application. As he explained this morning, the applicant does not challenge any particular decision of the Migration Review Tribunal or the Department of Immigration & Citizenship but rather, she challenges a series of decisions and actions by that Department and the Tribunal. In submissions he described the complaint as mal-administration of his sister’s claims over a seven year period. He says that the mal-administration has caused grievous harm to his sister and to himself.
The grounds of the application set out in the document filed on

1 August 2008
do not really identify the basis upon which the application is brought. The grounds assert that the applicant has been deprived of certain things, most particularly, money.
The applicant seeks orders that she be compensated by the respondents jointly for the money that it is said she lost and for damages for injury to her health and her "existential wellbeing". This morning the applicant's brother indicated that the relief that is sought by her in these proceedings is not sought under the Migration Act. Indeed, as the submissions and the material filed by the second respondent make clear, there is no basis under the Migration…

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 Sochoroza 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: [2008] FMCA 1544
Decision Date: 9 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sochoroza v Minister for Immigration involved a dispute where the applicant, Sochoroza, sought relief against the decisions of the Minister for Immigration and the Minister for Home Affairs regarding their refusal to grant the applicant a visa. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. Sochoroza, a foreign national, challenged the legality and fairness of the decisions made by the respondents, arguing that they were unjust and not in accordance with the applicable law.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the decision-making process adhered to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, and whether there were errors in the interpretation or application of the Migration Act 1958. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the decisions were supported by the evidence, whether the applicant was given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against them, and if the decisions were within the scope of the legislative powers granted to the respondents.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the decision-making process was conducted in a manner that met the standards of natural justice and procedural fairness. The court held that the respondents provided sufficient reasons for their decisions, which were based on the evidence available. The court also found that the applicant was given an adequate opportunity to respond to the concerns raised. Therefore, the court concluded that the decisions were lawful and appropriately exercised the powers conferred by the Migration Act. The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs to both respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the application filed 1 August, 2008 be dismissed.

That the applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in sum of $1,000.00.

That the applicant pay the second respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1,000.00.

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.