Tarasovski, C. & Ors v Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs Tarasovska, S. & Ors v Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs

In the case of Tarasovski and Others v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, the applicants sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to cancel their visas on the basis that they had made, or caused to be made, false statements to an officer exercising powers or performing functions in respect of their entry into Australia. The applicants argued that they did not make any false statements, and that they had not caused any such statements to be made. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, which was required to determine the legal issues surrounding the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the meaning of "bogus document".

The court was required to determine whether the applicants had made, or caused to be made, false statements to an officer exercising powers or performing functions in respect of entry into Australia, and if so, whether such statements were material to the issue of their visas. The court also had to consider the meaning of "bogus document" and whether there was a causal relationship between the making of a false representation and the issue of the document. The applicants argued that the Minister had erred in law by finding that they had made, or caused to be made, false statements to an officer exercising powers or performing functions in respect of entry into Australia, and that the Minister had failed to consider relevant material.

The court found that the applicants had made, or caused to be made, false statements to an officer exercising powers or performing functions in respect of entry into Australia, and that such statements were material to the issue of their visas. The court held that the Minister's decision was not flawed by any error of law, and that the applicants had failed to establish any ground of judicial review. The court found that the Minister had properly considered the relevant material and had made the correct decision. The court also held that there was a causal relationship between the making of a false representation and the issue of the document, and that the meaning of "bogus document" was clear and unambiguous.

The court dismissed the application and ordered that the applicants pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding. The costs were to be taxed on the basis of a joint hearing of matters NG 220 of 1993 and NG 311 of 1993. The settlement and entry of orders was dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.