Re: MELE FAKAOLA TAVELI; INOKE PAUU TAVELI FAKA'OSI; TAVELI UIKILIFI AND TAILIILI TAVELI FAKA'OSI And: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ETHIC AFFAIRS No. N G 1393 of 1988 FED No. 175 Administrative Law
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION Wilcox J.(1)
CATCHWORDS
Administrative Law - Immigration - Applications for permanent residence - Decisions to refuse applications and to deport applicants - Validity of decisions - Natural justice - Incorrect statement made in departmental submission to decision-maker that male applicant arrested after involvement in hotel brawl - Reference to use by applicants of Medicare benefits - Whether sufficient time allowed to applicants to put relevant material before decision-maker - Failure to take into account relevant circumstances - Effect of fact that statute identifies relevant considerations regarding permanent entry permits - Proper inference to be drawn in respect of documents attached to submission - Omission of material relating to satisfaction by applicants of entry requirements - Unreasonableness - Effect of invalidity of deportation order on subsequent detention of male applicant.
Solicitors for the Applicants: Craddock, Murray & Neumann
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr B Skinner
Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
ORDER
The decisions made by Tuong Quang Luu on behalf of the respondent:
(a) to refuse the grant to each of the second and fourth applicants of a temporary entry permit;
(b) to refuse the grant to each of the second and fourth applicants of a permanent entry permit; and
(c) to deport each of the second and fourth applicants;
are each invalid.
The detention in custody of the second applicant in reliance upon the purported deportation order made by the said Tuong Quang Luu against the second applicant on 28 November 1988 between the time when the second applicant was informed of the making of that order by a person who was an "officer", within the meaning of s.5 of the Migration Act 1958, and the release of the second applicant pursuant to the order made by this Court on 2 December 1988 was unlawful.
Each of the decisions referred to in order (1) hereof be set aside as from the date of those decisions.
The applications made to the respondent by the second and fourth applicants for the grant to each of them of:
(a) a temporary entry permit; and
(b) a permanent entry permit be remitted to the respondent for further consideration according to law.
The respondent pay to the applicants their costs of the proceeding.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
JUDGE1
This application, made under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, seeks the review of several decisions made under the Migration Act 1958 by Tuong Quang Luu, the delegate of the respondent Minister. Those decisions concern the second and fourth applicants, Inoke Pauu…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Taveli v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethn...
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Taveli, M.F. & Ors v. Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs [1989] FCA 175
Case
[1989] FCA 175
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Taveli v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs involved several applicants who sought to challenge decisions made by the Minister for Immigration regarding their applications for both temporary and permanent residence in Australia. The applicants argued that the decisions to refuse their applications and to deport them were invalid due to procedural errors and a failure to consider relevant circumstances. The court was tasked with determining the validity of these decisions and whether the applicants had been afforded natural justice.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the decision-makers had adhered to the principles of natural justice, particularly in the context of providing the applicants with an opportunity to respond to significant allegations and information. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the decision-makers had considered all relevant factors and whether the statutory provisions governing the issuance of entry permits had been properly applied. The applicants also contended that the Minister failed to take into account material information that would have influenced the outcome of their applications.
The court found that the decision-makers had indeed made errors in the process, thereby rendering the decisions invalid. The court highlighted that the applicants were not provided with sufficient opportunity to address certain allegations, such as the incorrect statement about one applicant's arrest following a hotel brawl. The court also noted that the applicants had not been given adequate time to present relevant material, and the decision-makers had omitted to consider certain aspects of the applicants' circumstances. Furthermore, the court concluded that the invalidity of the deportation order also rendered the subsequent detention of one applicant unlawful.
In light of these findings, the court set aside the decisions made by the Minister and remitted the applicants' applications for temporary and permanent entry permits back to the Minister for reconsideration. Additionally, the court ordered the Minister to pay the applicants' costs of the proceeding. The court's decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the proper application of statutory provisions in immigration decisions.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decisions made by Tuong Quang Luu on behalf of the respondent:
(a) to refuse the grant to each of the second and fourth applicants of a temporary entry permit;
(b) to refuse the grant to each of the second and fourth applicants of a permanent entry permit; and
(c) to deport each of the second and fourth applicants;
are each invalid.
The detention in custody of the second applicant in reliance upon the purported deportation order made by the said Tuong Quang Luu against the second applicant on 28 November 1988 between the time when the second applicant was informed of the making of that order by a person who was an "officer", within the meaning of s.5 of the Migration Act 1958, and the release of the second applicant pursuant to the order made by this Court on 2 December 1988 was unlawful.
Each of the decisions referred to in order (1) hereof be set aside as from the date of those decisions.
The applications made to the respondent by the second and fourth applicants for the grant to each of them of:
(a) a temporary entry permit; and
(b) a permanent entry permit be remitted to the respondent for further consideration according to law.
The respondent pay to the applicants their costs of the proceeding.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.