FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SYED & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2011] FMCA 397 |
| MIGRATION – Application for extension of time to review decision of MRT – where no reasonably arguable case – where applicant applied for Ministerial intervention under s.351. |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.116(3), 351, 476, 477 Migration Regulations 1994, r.2.43(2)(b)(i) |
| Daniel v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 21 |
| First Applicant: Second Applicant: Third Applicant: Fourth Applicant: Fifth Applicant: | ZULFIQAR ALI SYED BUSHRA ZAINAB SYED SAIMABSAR ALI RIZUI SYED EZRAM ABBAS ALI RIZUI SYED ABIHA RUBAB SYED |
| First Respondent: Second Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | DNG 2 of 2011 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 17 May 2011 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 17 May 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Darwin |
| Delivered on: | 17 May 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| For the Applicants: | In person |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
Substantive application dismissed.
Applicant to pay the First Respondents costs assessed in the sum of $4,000.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT DARWIN |
DNG 2 of 2011
| ZULFIQAR ALI SYED |
First Applicant
| BUSHRA ZAINAB SYED |
Second Applicant
| SAIMABSAR ALI RIZUI SYED |
Third Applicant
| EZRAM ABBAS ALI RIZUI SYED |
Fourth Applicant
| ABIHA RUBAB SYED |
Fifth Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 5 January 2011 Mr Syed applied to this court to review a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal that had been handed down on 6 June 2010. Section 477 of the Migration Act 1958 (the “Act”) places time limits on applications to this court for a remedy to be granted in exercise of the court’s original jurisdiction under 476. The time limit is 35 days from the date of the Migration decision. The full wording of that section is:
“Time limits on applications to the Federal Magistrates Court
(1) An application to the Federal Magistrates Court for a remedy to be granted in exercise of the court's original jurisdiction under section 476 in relation to a migration decision must be made to the court within 35 days of the date of the migration decision.
(2) The Federal Magistrates Court may, by order, extend that 35 day period as the Federal Magistrates Court considers appropriate if:
(a) an application for that order has been made in writing to the Federal Magistrates Court specifying why the applicant considers that it is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to make the order; and
(b) the Federal Magistrates Court is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to make the order.
(3) In this section:
"date of the migration decision" means:
(a) in the case of a migration decision made under subsection 43(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 --the date of the written decision under that subsection; or
(b) in the case of a written migration decision made by the Migration Review Tribunal or the Refugee Review Tribunal--the date of the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Syed 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] FMCA 397
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the Minister had exercised his discretion lawfully, and whether the decision was open to judicial review. The court examined the applicable statutory provisions, the nature of the Minister’s discretion, and the evidence before the Minister at the time of the decision. The court found that the Minister had considered all relevant information, and that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa was lawful and rational. The court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was procedurally unfair.
The court dismissed the substantive application, finding that the Minister’s decision was lawful and rational. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent in the sum of $4,000.00. The court found that the applicant’s application was without merit, and that the First Respondent was entitled to costs under the relevant statutory provisions.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Substantive application dismissed.
2.
Applicant to pay the First Respondents costs assessed in the sum of $4,000.00.
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.