SZABO v Minister for Immigration
[2002] FMCA 354
•23 December 2002
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZABO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2002] FMCA 354 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Migration Review Tribunal decision – application for a bridging visa – whether applicant met the necessary criteria required for bridging visa – whether applicant could apply for permanent residency – no reviewable error found. |
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss.48B, 474
| Applicant: | SZABO |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | SZ 1207 of 2002 |
| Delivered on: | 23 December 2002 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Hearing date: | 23 December 2002 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
REPRESENTATION
| For the Applicant: | Applicant self-represented |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr A Markus |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
Application dismissed.
Applicant to pay the respondent's costs assessed in the sum of $2000 pursuant to Federal Magistrates Court Rules, part 21 rule 21.02(2)(a).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SZ 1207 of 2002
| SZABO |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In matter number SZ 1207 of 2002 the applicant is seeking review of a decision made by the Migration Review Tribunal on 1 November 2002 which found that the applicant was not entitled to a bridging visa E (class WE). The applicant sought a bridging visa whilst her application to the Minister under s.48B of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Migration Act) was being considered and she also asked for the visa on the following grounds:
(1)She wished to be released from detention to enable her to make arrangements to depart Australia.
(2)The visa applicant's two children were born in Australia and she needs to make arrangements to obtain a travel document for them from Tonga before they are able to depart.
The applicant advised the Tribunal that she did not hold a valid passport and she did not hold valid tickets for departure. She did not know the whereabouts of her husband who absconded at the time she was taken into immigration detention. Her sisters-in-law gave evidence before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal came to the view that on the evidence before it, it was satisfied that she had made a valid application for a bridging visa and that she met the criteria in clause 050.211. It found that she was an unlawful non-citizen and not an eligible non-citizen of the kind set out in subregulation 2.20(7) to (11).
The Tribunal found at [34] of its decision that the application was lodged on the basis that she intended to lodge an application for permanent residency (subclause 050.212(3)) but in fact, at the time of the application, she had yet to lodge such an application. She was prevented from lodging such an application because of the effects of sections 48 and 48A of the Migration Act which prohibited her from applying for any further substantive visas whilst on shore, following the refusal of her application for a protection visa. Because of this the Tribunal found that she failed to meet the requirements of subclause 050.212(3). The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet any of the remaining criteria for the grant of a bridging visa.
In regard to her application for a bridging visa while she made acceptable arrangements to depart Australia, the Tribunal found that she had not met the guidelines because she was not in possession of a valid travel document nor could she obtain one within a reasonable period. She did not have a ticket and she did not have a valid passport. The Tribunal came to the view that she failed to meet the requirements of regulation 050.212(4), 4AA and 4A. The Tribunal found she did not meet any other criteria.
The applicant has provided me with no assistance in finding some reason why the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal was incorrect in law or was open to me to review following the imposition into the Act of s.474 (the privative clause). On this basis I have no alternative but to dismiss the application, which I do.
I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs which I assess in the sum of $2,000.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Associate:
Date:
0
0
0