FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Suriyakamol v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2001] FCA 461WATCHAREEPORN SURIYAKAMOL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 151 of 2001
CONTI J
12 APRIL 2001
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 151 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
WATCHAREEPORN SURIYAKAMOL
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
CONTI J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 APRIL 2001
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application be dismissed.
2. The Applicant pay the costs of the Respondent.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 151 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
WATCHAREEPORN SURIYAKAMOL
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
CONTI J
DATE:
12 APRIL 2001
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The present application is for an order for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, which dismissed an application made in turn to that Tribunal for want of prosecution. The present application was filed in this court for review on 19 February, 2001 and sought an order that the Tribunal's finding or decision be quashed or set aside. On each of the two occasions that the present application has been listed for directions in this court before Registrar Hedge, the Applicant has failed to appear. The Applicant has been notified of the mention of the proceedings before me this morning by the solicitors for the Minister and has again failed to appear.
In these circumstances, pursuant to order 10, rule 3, subrule (2), I dismiss the application for review made to this court and direct that notification of that dismissal be furnished to the Applicant. I order that the costs of the Respondent be paid by the Applicant in connection with such application to this court.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Conti.
Associate:
Dated: 24 April 2001
Counsel for the Applicant:
No Appearance
Solicitor for the Respondent:
Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:
12 April 2001
Date of Judgment:
12 April 2001
- AGLC
- Suriyakamol v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 461
- Case
- [2001] FCA 461
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the specific provisions of the Migration Act that allowed for the cancellation of a visa based on character grounds. The applicant's visa was cancelled due to her criminal history, which the Minister deemed to be inconsistent with the public good. The court needed to determine if the Minister's decision was made in accordance with the law and if the applicant's character was such that it warranted visa cancellation. The court also had to consider whether the decision-making process was fair and whether the applicant had been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the Minister's decision was well within the statutory framework and that the decision-making process was lawful and procedurally fair. The court held that the Minister was entitled to consider the applicant's criminal history and that the visa cancellation was justified under the circumstances. The court concluded that the Minister's decision was not tainted by any errors of law and that the applicant's rights were adequately protected throughout the process. Therefore, the court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the respondent.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Application be dismissed.
2. The Applicant pay the costs of the Respondent.
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
Established by: CONTI J
Full text does not contain this section.