Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
MIGRATION – application for review lodged out of time – objection to competency well founded – application dismissed – no point of principle.
FREDY JOSE QUEVEDO-NAVARRO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS NG 595 of 1998 MOORE J 13 AUGUST 1998 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 595 of 1998
BETWEEN: FREDY JOSE QUEVEDO-NAVARRO
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER: 13 aUGUST 1998
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's 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 595 of 1998
BETWEEN FREDY JOSE QUEVEDO-NAVARRO
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: MOORE J
DATE: 13 AUGUST 1998
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered ex tempore) On 18 June 1998 an application was filed in this Court seeking an order of review of certain decisions. It is not entirely clear from the application itself what decisions are sought to be reviewed. However on a fair reading of the application the only decisions identified that this Court might conceivably have jurisdiction to review, are a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 24 March 1998, a decision of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs of 9 June 1998 ("the Minister's decision") deciding not to consider to exercise a power conferred on the Minister under s 417 of the Migration Act 1958 ("the Act") and a decision of a delegate of the Minister of 12 May 1997 refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa. In the course of submissions made on the applicant's behalf today by Mr Ramon Reyes, a further decision was identified, namely, the decision of the Immigration Review Tribunal of 5 June 1998. However, notwithstanding as generous an approach that might be brought to bear in construing the application, that decision does not, in my view, arise as a decision to which the application relates.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate