Soondur v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

In the matter of Soondur v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs, the applicants, Ms Soondur and her two daughters, sought judicial review of decisions made under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). Ms Soondur, a citizen of Fiji, arrived in Australia in 1989 with her husband and children on a visitor’s visa. Their application for permanent residency was refused, and subsequent applications for refugee status and a spouse visa were also denied. The applicants challenged the legality of their detention on the grounds of procedural unfairness, asserting that they were not properly notified of the rejection of their spouse visa application. The court had to determine whether the Minister's objection to the competency of the Court to review the decisions was valid and whether the detention was lawful.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Court had jurisdiction to review the decisions made by the Minister under the Migration Act and the AD(JR) Act. The court examined whether there was a valid decision under section 50 of the Act that could be reviewed and if the applicants had standing to challenge the detention order. Additionally, the court assessed the merits of the applicants' claims regarding the lawfulness of their detention and the adequacy of the procedural fairness afforded to them.

The court found that there was no valid decision under section 50 of the Act to review as the Act operated unilaterally to prevent the Minister from considering the applicants' third application for a protection visa. Consequently, the court upheld the Minister's objection to the competency of the Court to review the decisions. Furthermore, the court determined that the applicants were unlawful non-citizens at the time of their detention, and the Minister's failure to notify them of the rejection of their spouse visa application did not render their detention unlawful. The court concluded that the applicants' unlawful status predated any notification issues and that the Minister's actions did not cause their unlawful status.

The court dismissed the application as incompetent and ordered that the first applicant pay the respondent's costs.