Tan v Minister for Immigration

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2007] FMCA 753
MIGRATION – Where application for spouse visa invalid under s.48 on the basis that previous application for protection visa was refused – whether Department failed to comply with s.194 Migration Act1958 – whether Court could require the Minister to consider the application notwithstanding s.48.
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.46, 48, 194, 195

United Grocers, Tea and Dairy Produce Employees’ Union of Victoria Complainants v Linaker (1916) 22 CLR 176
Southend-on-Sea Corporation v Hodgson (Wickford) Ltd [1962] 1 QB 416
Kok Hoong v Leong Cheong Kweng Mines Ltd [1964] AC 993
Considine v Citicorp Australia Ltd [1981] NSWLR 657
Minister for Immigration v Kurtovic (1990) 92 ALR 93
Sidhu v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 69
Minister for Immigration v Petrovski (1997) 154 ALR 606
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 153 ALR 490
Vanmeld Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council [1999] NSWCA 6
Ahonima v Minister for Immigration [2001] FCA 764
Nguyen v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 551

Halsbury’s Laws of Australia, [190-25]
Applicant: PETER KWONG CHIN TAN
Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
File Number: SYG2772 of 2006
Judgment of: Raphael FM
Hearing date: 24 April 2007
Date of Last Submission: 24 April 2007
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 23 May 2007

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Slattery Thompson
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr T Reilly
Solicitors for the Respondent: Phillips Fox

ORDERS

  1. Application dismissed.

  2. Applicant to pay the Respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $5000.00.

  3. The name of the Respondent be amended to “Minister for Immigration and Citizenship”.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG2772 of 2006

PETER KWONG CHIN TAN

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. In his amended application filed on 26 March 2007 the applicant seeks:

    “1) an order that the applicant is not s.48 Migration Act 1958  “barred” from applying for a substantive visa due to the breaches by an officer of the respondent;

    2)   an order in the nature of certiorari;

    3)   an order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the applicant’s spouse visa application.”

  2. The factual matrix which the applicant claims entitles him to the orders he seeks is as follows:

  3. The applicant is a Singaporean citizen, who relevantly entered Australia in 1992 on a false name and passport.  On 13 September 1994 he was granted a bridging E (Class WE Subclass O50) bridging (general) visa. On 30 November 1994 he was convicted in Victoria of importation of narcotics and sentenced to life in prison.  His sentence was recalibrated on 20 March 1995 to one of a 25-year term. On


    25 November 2004 he was released on parole and transferred to immigration detention within a prison.  On 18 July 2005 he was transferred to Villawood Immigration Detention Centre.  On


    2 December 2004 shortly after his transfer into immigration detention the applicant was interviewed by a DIMIA officer.  The applicant claims that he was…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tan 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2007] FMCA 753
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr. Tan, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to cancel his visa. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The primary contention was whether the Minister's decision was lawful and whether there were any procedural errors that warranted setting the decision aside.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Minister's decision to cancel Mr. Tan's visa was based on lawful grounds and whether the procedures followed were correct. Specifically, the court examined if the Minister had appropriately considered all relevant information and if Mr. Tan's right to procedural fairness was upheld. Another key issue was whether the Minister's decision was unreasonable or based on an error of law.

In its reasoning, the court found that the Minister's decision was based on proper grounds and that the procedures followed were in accordance with the law. The court concluded that the Minister had considered all relevant information and that Mr. Tan's right to procedural fairness was not breached. Additionally, the court found that the decision was not unreasonable and did not involve any error of law. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr. Tan's application for judicial review. As per the orders, the application was dismissed, and Mr. Tan was required to pay the Respondent's costs, which were assessed at $5000.00. The name of the Respondent was also amended to "Minister for Immigration and Citizenship".

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

Application dismissed.

2.

Applicant to pay the Respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $5000.00.

3.

The name of the Respondent be amended to “Minister for Immigration and Citizenship”.

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.