Wickramasinghe v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCA 917

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wickramasinghe v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 917

DILANKA WICKRAMASINGHE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 462 OF 2002

BRANSON J
16 JULY 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 462 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	DILANKA WICKRAMASINGHE APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	BRANSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 JULY 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.There be no order for costs.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 462 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	DILANKA WICKRAMASINGHE APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	BRANSON J
DATE:	16 JULY 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter was heard together with that of the applicant’s sister, Ms Dinithie Wickramasinghe.  The applicant in this case is the twin brother of Ms Diluka Wijayakoon (“Ms Wijayakoon”).  Ms Wijayakoon nominated both the applicant and Ms Dinithie Wickramasinghe for a Family (Residence) (Class AO) visa on the basis that he was a special need relative.  The Tribunal heard the applicant’s application for review of the decision refusing him and his wife and child the visa which he sought together with that of Ms Dinithie Wickramasinghe.

2. As in the matter of Ms Dinithie Wickramasinghe the Tribunal concluded that:

   “There is no evidence that the nominator was unable or found it difficult to look after herself at the time of the visa application.”

   The applicant in this case advances through his counsel the same complaint with respect to the above finding as was advanced in the matter of Ms Dinithie Wickramasinghe.

3. In my view, the complaint is without substance because it involves the same erroneous reading of the written reasons for decision as I identified in the matter of Ms Dinithie Wickramasinghe (Wickramasinghe v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 916). Interestingly the written reasons for decision in this case reveal another example of the tendency in the Presiding Member which I identified in the matter of Ms Dinithie Wickramasinghe. Paragraph 40 of the Tribunal’s reasons for decision in this case states:

   “The Tribunal … is unable to find as a fact that the nominator was at the time of the visa application depressed and anxious to a level which could amount to serious circumstances.”

4. In my view, it is plain that the Tribunal member intended to convey by the above paragraph that having considered all of the relevant evidence before her she was satisfied that the nominator’s depression and anxiety at the relevant time was not of a level which could amount to serious circumstances.

5. For the reasons given in the related matter of Ms Dinithie Wickramasinghe the order of the Court is the application be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Branson.

Associate:

Dated:             24 July 2002

Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Applicants:	Mr B Zipser
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr T Reilly
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	16 July 2002
Date of Judgment:	16 July 2002