Ramanistrative cperatian - decreiion. CATCHMOERDS rider denartatian case aoplication for upsetting To MCBSMAD HAMAT eerepeoe SYDUEY Vv . "~ FOP IMMIEGPATION IN THE FEDEEADL COUPT OF SUSTPALTIA NEW ScUTH WALES DISTRICT PEGIETRY GENERAL DIVISTON cl a] tH ue ae a i ie) ms i 'da) BATE: 17 TENVAFY 1786 ELACE: AYDNEY The Court orders that 1. The aprolication for a st AGRinst the applicant on Jism1lessc, 2. The «xosts of today's a Not : Settlement and the Federal EETWEEN : Couct Pules. ay 6 January 1980 by the entry of orders is dealt with — = fay ©)tu a bal w 1o co ow MBAHMCUD MOHAMED HAMWI Applicant THE MINISTER FUP IMMIGRATION BND ETHNIC AFFATRS Fespondent ul Ny Dita SOUTH u ral W) tH n ' ut ii) Ihm rp} BETNEEN : MEHMOMTID MOHEMAD HAMMT w try a, ray oO su i es at ANT: THE MINISTSD FOP TMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC SFRAIFS Manmoud MrLamad decisicn nade iy applicaticn for T 27ar 12 apr \ecislon Th ols teommin wecand chat this 1s the teer altheugh it may ne @exprezsed in wariwue wave, It is not incumbent upon an aprlicant dence sufficient ceo establish cto a court on the balance of peobakiiibres trat ni? tase is correct; that is a matter which arises The applicant ais a ritizen -f Lebaron, He wae born *her2 in fa Ae arcived in 4ustralia aun duly 1923 and was granted a ¥ Ist 1a) fra npohabyred"™ Fanmail but rhat agpesal vad sinsucteseful and om 23 fSuguet Lost he vas Tip ectei te azenaer Auetraiza within 23 days. Tw arolicant ledvesi ag sursenuent annlicataon for residert status on 12 Detember 1°85 which arpeare tt have been rejected an or Department of Immioration and Ethnic Sffairs in New Fouth Wales and rhe Minister which in due course lei the Del=qate make the decortation order minder challenge. If need not refer to all 2a contents of that gubmission as i1t is vers full and they hare heen The first ground of attack made ty the arplictant on the = that although the Delecgate cansidered the Fact that the had brasxen down, lady cho 1s a4 rishes ED marry, pe) ™ sy an tu q m~ wu ny pa cr iy b 's a ny) " ny Ia » 4a DH a ¢ fC am oO iv3 [ay iD =a rr D ~ Btt fa) bs ws ies c m QOc ia a" 'D mien the rar Pods Pupehet ater repmin, The subniciicr fe Drleqate Joes in terms refer te an application, thith ft take 12 must ke that agpmlictaticn as 1f bears the same date and otherwise answers esecription oY ome RoouT 4 Tanuarz 1559, "4 am oot sxtiafied Chat this gwround of 23 ac T thane at can be artued that the Delegate failed ta sive prop Ehe application of 18 December 12865, fearcs are reali, soundiy based cr groundiess in wnele or in part. The question us whether the Minister raok relevant matters into artcount cr noo. Having perised all the reiavant material, in particular the the Dpeleyste which led te the deportation cfraer, IT am Ttonsidered by ¢£ applicant oppor fun hough no veference has peen made a ban cr ul no tTn Wt Nn on] L Ej rf mh a sg mWOo) an io y lag bral C s '3 Qo in th aft TT = rv furt ' in Pp wn Pl ty m iD 2, namely, that ain certain factors personal tc an applicant are taken inta acltount bro chs deciston-maker, the deporting authority 1¢ required ta ebserve the rules of natural justice. Li. wa Made to the acturacy of the statament, Yeo cage has beer wane or of an agguable prature to establish that tie Vsleyate sess" a: paving vegarda fe tro ogealie ze the other fave matters to which T refer upon wh Wrong. Te is stated an the submission that the arplicant cktained a wisitoc ¢ visa by providing false information overseas. This relates, amongst cther cEhings, te statements made before he obtained 32 visitor = wisa that the applicant would net uncertake employment while in Australia. I am not satisfied that thie 18 a matter in respect of i which there is any argquabie iy eas tr error of fact on the m a2 a tt fer tu + t Ther 16 1¢ said in the submission that the applicant avoided contact with the Department of Immigration fcllowing instructions to ralia. Tt "1 that allegation but there is no evidence before me te suggest that the ere is certsiniv no direct evidence te sup of Long standing, and that is a fact. Then it is said that the aprlicant has drarm upon government benefits in the form of social security parments from Medicare. That, too, would tend to appear to be the fact rather than not. Finally, 1 1s said in fhe submission that the applicant has committed offences against Zastyralian lawe 4 oifacere cf the Austealian Protective Tervwices, matters, if is said an the subrission that the applicant was Australia of a narcotics offence on 29 November 1985 at erzux then making his deportation order. The fact that an offence in Ae toe the alleged ascault of officers of the Australian Protective Services, all f= know about it is that it is asserted that on 1 December 1985 the applicant assaulted an officer of the Bustralian Protective Services at the Villawood Detention Centre and a AY in r r 'bcl s f J o KH Bi) nhD fen lam [9] cr ey D = vr nN Le]1) BB b cr fy is) ies) Dp f= ay) fo pu io] DctD oy eT kt a iv ips) fy tH er Phat offenc® was cr was not rommitted, but a statement to the effect that it was committed was before the Delegate befcre me that it us arguable that the statement was wrong. In all at or Hag Oi o fa ivy Cc & in ct oi o n i) wa H fa) aa ct satisfied chat an arquable case has been Accordingly the application fer a stay of the deportation Refers lsavirg the matter, however. I should aust male Th= Court makes the following orders:- 1 That the application for a stay of the deportation order made against the applicant by the respondent be dismissed. } certify that this and the ejaht (3) Preceding pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Jucgment herein of his Honour Mr Justice Leckha+t Kowonr Darke r Associata t ~ pated: / 77/4 Jarsory, IG§& fo. . mm ~ if! tn ye ¢ rae)