Borland, Paul James v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1987] FCA 221

cl

CATCHWORDS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Immigration ~- Decision to refuse application for permanent entry permit - Applicant previously granted permanent residence ~- Effect of departure from Australia - Whether s.9 of Migration Act applies to permanent residents ~- Erroneous information supplied to applicant by Australian High Commission overseas - Whether any estoppel - Pailure to take into account fact of inaccurate information -

Basis upon which application considered.

Migration Act 1958 ss.6, 6A, 9. Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 s.5.

NSW G.46 of 1987 PAUL JAMES BORLAND v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS

Wilcox J Sydney ll May 1987

RECEIVED '1 | MAY 1987

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PRINCIPAL REGISTRY

Ne

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NSW G.46 of 1987 ) )

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: PAUL JAMES BORLAND

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS

Respondent

CORAM : WILCOX J PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 11 MAY 1987

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The decision made by the respondent to refuse the application of the applicant dated 7 January 1985 for the grant to him of a permanent entry permit pursuant to ss.6 and 6A of the Migration Act 1958 be set

aside.

2. The said application be referred back to the respondent for further consideration according to

law.

2.

3. The respondent pay to the applicant his costs of this

proceeding.

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 No. NSW G.46 of 1987

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: PAUL JAMES BORLAND

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS

Respondent

CORAM : WILCOX J PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 11 MAY 1987

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This case is, in its nature, common enough. The applicant, Paul James Borland, challenges under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 certain decisions made on behalf of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in connection with an application made by him for an entry permit, under s.6 of the Migration Act 1958, enabling him to remain permanently in Australia. However, the circumstances of the case are unusual. This is not the typical situation of a person whose