Elmi, A. v The Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1987] FCA 789

Limited Netrlation .

JUDGMENT No, [697.8

Cr ran'

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. 588 of 1987

wee

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: ALI ELMI Applicant _ SLL AND: THE MINISTER FOR ale IMMIGRATION AND" = ch ETHNIC AFFAIRS' 'cf' of LY OS Respondent | ' " i vo Vey c& wk SS \ \ Be thy &e R CORAM: GUNMOW J. oo g* PLACE: SYDNEY. iv, "

DATE: 21 DECEMBER 1987. os

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 28 July 1986, a delegate of the respondent Minister, acting in pursuance of power conferred by s. 12 of the Migration Act 1958 ("the Migration Act"), ordered that the applicant be deported from Australia. The Order of 28 July 1986 recited that the applicant had been convicted at the Parramatta Dastrict Court on 3 October 1984 of an offence, namely, the supply of a drug of addiction, Indian hemp, for which he was sentenced to four years imprisonment on 17

December 1984.

The offence was committed on 13 April 1984 and at that time the applicant was not an Australian citizen and had been present in Australia as a permanent resident for less than 12 years, hence the applicability of s. 12 of the Migration Act.

On 20 August 1986, the applicant filed in the Administrative

mo eee

arr

care

were ee

oo eee

woe yo

-~w

"

2.

Appeals Tribunal an application for review of the decision to issue that deportation order. On 16 June 1987, that Tribunal delivered its decision. The decision was that the matter be remitted to the respondent Minister for reconsideration in accordance with a recommendation that the order for deportation be revoked.

The evidence indicates that during the period in which the matter was before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for consideration, the applicant reported to the Immigration Department at Parramatta on a weekly basis. On 29 October 1987, a representative of the regional director of the respondent's Department wrote to the applicant at 4 Handley Street, Auburn, New South Wales, informing him that the Minister had decided on 9 October 1987 not to accept the recommendation of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that the deportation order be revoked. The letter concluded by stating that it was proposed to finalise arrangements for the deportation as soon as possible. It appears that the letter in question was not received by the applicant at the above address.