Tuncak, H. v. Smith, B.L. & Ors [1988] FCA 67

NUDGMENT No. ©7 7, 38

CATCHWORDS Judicial review - Immigration - Refusal to grant entry permit - Natural justice - Allegations that applicant had adopted false identities and used false passports - failure to permit opportunity bo answer. Judicial review - Immigration - Refusal to grant entry permit -

Whether decision so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have 50 exercised the power - Hardship to children of applicant - Abandoned by wife.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 - ss. 5, 13

Migration Act 1958 - ss. 6, 36A

Prasad's Case (1985) 6 F.C.R. 155

HACOGLU TUNCAK V. MR. BLL. SMITH {WHO IS SUED IN HIS CAPACITY a3 THE DIRECTOR ENTRY OPERATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND

ETHNIC AFFAIRS).

VG432 of 1387

Jenkinson J.

Melbourne 5 February, 1988

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. VG432 of 1987

GENERAL DIVISTON )

BETWEEN: HACOGLU TUNCAK Applicant

AND: MR. B.L. SMITH (WHO I5 SUED IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR ENTRY OPERATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS)

Respondent

CORAM: Jenkinson d. PLACE: Melbourne DATE: 5 February, 1989

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application for an order of review in respect of a

decision of the respondent to refuse the applicant an entry permit

under section 6(2) of the Migration Act.

The decision was made on 22 October 1987 and the

respondent has provided a statement, pursuant to section 13 of the

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1377, of his

findings and his reasons for the decision. The circumstances which led to the making of the application for an entry permit are marrated by French J. in written reasons for his judgment in another proceeding which concerned the applicant as well as other

persons. The reasons were published on 1 September 1987. I will

gratefully adopt as my own the statement of the circumstances to which his Honour refers in the first 12 pages of the reasons for his Honour's decision, and I will not repeat what his Honour there sets out. His Honour was concerned with a decision, made immediately after the arrival of the applicant at Perth on a commercial airliner from Thailand, to refuse entry to the applicant. His Honour declined to set aside that decision and the applicant remains a person who has not ina legal sense entered Australia, although he is in custody under the provisions of section 36A of the Migration Act 1958. While the proceedings which concluded before French J. onl September 1987 were in train, other applications were made by the applicant, all of them