Somaghi, R.A.B. v Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs

[1990] FCA 736

Re: RAMAZAN ALI BABAEI SOMAGHI
And: THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS
No. V G351 of 1990
FED No. 736

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Ryan J.(1)

HEARING

MELBOURNE

#DATE 6:12:1990

Counsel for applicant: Mr P.N. Rose

Solicitors for applicant: Erskine H. Rodan

Counsel for respondent: -

Solicitors for respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

JUDGE1

By motion on notice dated 3 December 1990 the applicant seeks first an order that:

"all proceedings to remove the Applicant from Australia be stayed pending the hearing and

determination of an appeal from the judgment of the Honourable Mr Justice Lockhart given at

Melbourne on the 22nd of November 1990;"

1. The order made by Lockhart J. on that date was that the application of the applicant for review pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 be dismissed with costs. The grounds set out in the applicant's notice of appeal, except for those going to the question of whether the applicant had entered Australia which did not arise in the present case, are substantially identical to the grounds relied on in the notice of appeal in Heshmati v the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (VG 352 of 1990) in which I have just pronounced judgment. Lockhart J., in his reasons for judgment on Somaghi's application, recited that:
   

"This case was heard immediately after the hearing of the case of Heshmati against The Minister. There are many elements of fact and law common to both cases, though no question arises in the case of the applicant, Somaghi, as to whether s.6A of the Migration Act 1958 ("the Act") applies because it is common ground that he entered Australia so that the prohibitions contained in s.6A on the grant of an entry permit under s.6 apply."

1. It was accepted on both sides that there was no material difference between the two cases for the purpose of considering whether or not the Minister should be restrained from executing the deportation order pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. Accordingly, for the reasons indicated in respect of Heshmati's application, I make similar orders to those made on that application.