Susiatin, Susiatin v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 825

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Migration – application for judicial review – objection to competency – whether application filed out of time – when time commences to run – whether reg 5.03 of Migration Regulations applies to s 478 of the Migration Act – meaning of "within" – whether reg 5.03 deems applicant to have received document irrespective of actual receipt – whether deemed receipt encompasses notification. Migration Act 1958 – s 478 Migration Regulations – reg 5.03 Acts Interpretation Act 1901 – s 36(1)

Shrestha v The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 13 October 1997, unreported – dist. Nguyen v The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 437 – dist. Reynolds v Reynolds (1941) VLR 249 – cons. Morton v Hampson (1962) VR 364 – cons. Ward v Walton (1989) 10 MVR 537 – cons. SUSIATIN SUSIATIN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS NG 1002 of 1997 JUDGE: BEAUMONT J. PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 5 JUNE 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 1002 of 1997

BETWEEN: SUSIATIN SUSIATIN

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: BEAUMONT J.

DATE OF ORDER: 5 JUNE 1998

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

ORDERS: 1. Objection to competency upheld. 2. Application dismissed with costs. 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 NG 1002 of 1997

BETWEEN: SUSIATIN SUSIATIN

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: BEAUMONT J.

DATE: 5 JUNE 1998

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BEAUMONT J: Before the Court is a notice of objection to competency in an application for judicial review in a migration matter. The background to the objection is as follows. On 27 November 1997 the applicant, Susiatin Susiatin, filed an application for an order of review naming the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs as the respondent. The application stated that it was an application to review the decision of the Minister to refuse an application to remain permanently in Australia under a protection visa. The application stated: "The decision was made on 22 October 1997 and it is said to have been received by the Applicant on or about 27 October 1997." In her application the applicant said that she was aggrieved by the Minister's decision because, inter alia, she had a well-founded fear of persecution in the country of her nationality.