Wukir v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2001] FCA 1449

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wukir v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1449

TRIE WUKIR AND UIRA NABILLA V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N1074 OF 2001

MOORE J
4 SEPTEMBER 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N1074 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

TRIE WUKIR AND UIRA NABILLA
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE

DATE OF ORDER:

4 SEPTEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application be dismissed.

2.   The applicants pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N1074 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

TRIE WUKIR AND UIRA NABILLA
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE

DATE:

4 SEPTEMBER 2001

PLACE:

SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MOORE J:

  1. Having regard to the exchange between the applicant and myself and counsel for the Minister and myself it appears that at best this is an application to review a judicially reviewable decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 30 December 1998.  The application was made on 13 July 2001.  It is plainly incompetent.  I suspect, however, that these proceedings were initiated by the applicant in this Court in the hope that this Court may be able to provide her with some comfort about her position in this country and more particularly the position of her young daughter.

  2. However, as I have endeavoured to explain it is not my role to make decisions under the Migration Act1958 (Cth) addressing those matters even if the Act provided an opportunity for the applicant and/or her daughter to remain in Australia. The only course open to me is to order that the application is dismissed and the applicant pay the respondent’s costs and I so order.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:             17 October 2001

The applicant appeared in person on behalf of herself and her daughter

Counsel for the Respondent: Dean Jordan
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 4 September 2001
Date of Judgment: 4 September 2001
Details
AGLC
Wukir v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1449
Case
[2001] FCA 1449
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wukir v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs involved the applicants, Wukir and his family, who sought to overturn a decision to revoke their visas on the grounds of character and health. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants argued that the decision to cancel their visas was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable, and that the Minister had failed to consider all relevant factors.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Minister had acted lawfully and reasonably in cancelling the applicants' visas, and whether the Minister had failed to consider all relevant factors in making the decision. The applicants contended that the Minister had not taken into account the hardship that would be caused to their family, including the impact on their children, and that the decision was therefore unreasonable. The Minister, on the other hand, argued that the applicants' visas were lawfully cancelled in accordance with the Migration Act and that the Minister had properly exercised their discretion.

The court found that the Minister had acted lawfully and reasonably in cancelling the applicants' visas. The court held that the Minister had properly considered all relevant factors, including the health and character of the applicants, and that the decision to cancel the visas was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The court also found that the Minister had not failed to consider any relevant factors, and that the decision was therefore valid. The applicants' appeal was dismissed, and they were ordered to pay the Minister's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicants pay the respondent’s costs.

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

MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.