Balou, Ratco & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1984] FCA 140

}HO

IM THE _FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALTA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VG No. 137 of 1984

GENERAL DIVISTON

ww ew ev

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

BETWEEN: RATCO BALOV and A. ST. GEORGE

<> fay 4 sally, (Applicants) Er

= S Be, . T oy~ Go no\ [ey CA - Sir OS AND: THE HONOURABLE iy We Bet STEWART WEST, in al ns) his capacity as Pye IMMIGRATION AND ey ETHNIC AFFAIRS "M7 aa (Respondent)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: I do not think it 1s necessary for me at this moment to deliver anything in the nature of a detailed judgment. I do feel, on the argument that serious questions are to be determined, and that there are certainly reasonable grounds for thinking that the applicant may establish his case for a review of the decisions to refuse an entry permit under s.6A(2) of the

Migration Act 1958 (the Act) which will involve

consideration arising under section 6A(1)(c} and (e)

relating to the refugee status and the compassionate

matters respectively. The view has been taken by the

respondent that the decision under s.6A(1)(c) is not one under the Act and I. think that is a problem which needs

to be addressed.

Under s.6A(1)(e) the position has been taken that the review provision, referred to as review right IV, did not have to be brought to the notice of the applicant. In relation to the decision not to revoke, that decision seems to have been made on what 1s more or less an implied application for a revocation. But, there is a view that has been taken that a decision not to revoke would not be a decision under the Act and there is therefore no reason for the Minister to consider the implied application. But where an application for revocation is made and the Minister rejects it, it is dadifficult to say that that rejection is not a decision under the Act. These are serious questions and apparently time will be necessary for the preparation of the case for each side. The application has been