Bizuneh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 6

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bizuneh v Minister For Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 6 MIGRATION – application for review of decision of Migration Review Tribunal affirming decision not to issue Bridging E (Class WE) Visa Sub-Class 050 (General) – no question of general principle. TAFESE ESHETU BIZUNEH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 1517 OF 1999 LINDGREN J 6 JANUARY 2000 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1517 OF 1999

BETWEEN: TAFESE ESHETU BIZUNEH

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: LINDGREN J

DATE OF ORDER: 6 JANUARY 2000

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be 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 N 1517 OF 1999

BETWEEN: TAFESE ESHETU BIZUNEH

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: LINDGREN J

DATE: 6 JANUARY 2000

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (ex tempore) 1 By his application filed on 31 December 1999, the applicant seeks review of a decision dated 24 December 1999 of the Migration Review Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister refusing to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) Visa, Sub-Class 050 (General). The Court has jurisdiction to review such decisions: See ss 474, 475 (1)(a), 476(1) and 486 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). 2 There has been a lengthy course of litigation initiated by the applicant. The earliest proceeding is N 508 of 1999 by which the applicant sought review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a refusal to grant him a protection visa ("the First Proceeding"). In the First Proceeding, on 13 August 1999 the applicant joined with the respondent Minister in consenting to orders dismissing his application and ordering him to pay the Minister's costs in an amount of $850. Those orders were entered on 30 August 1999. 3 On 28 October 1999 the applicant attempted to file in the First Proceeding a notice of motion seeking an order setting aside the order of dismissal. Apparently he did so after a disappointing outcome of an application by him to the Minister for exercise of the Minister's discretion under s 417 of the Act. The notice of motion was brought to the attention of Tamberlin J who, on 10 November 1999, pursuant to O 46 r 7A of the Federal Court Rules, directed the Registrar not to accept it. 4 Then the applicant commenced proceeding N 1427 of 1999 on 10 December 1999 ("the Second Proceeding"). The document commencing the Second Proceeding purported to apply for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal from a judgment of Tamberlin J given on 10 November 1999 (the form of application stated "10/10/99" but this was clearly an error). That application is pending and is returnable before the Court on 7 February 2000. 5 On 21 December 1999 the applicant commenced proceeding N 1465 of 1999 ("the Third Proceeding") by which, in substance, he seeks an order that he be discharged from the Villawood Detention Centre or that he be transferred "to another custody where the Department has no control". In the Third Proceeding the applicant has filed a notice of motion seeking a hearing of that application during the current Court vacation. He is not ready to have a final hearing of the Third Proceeding today. Directions will need to be made in that proceeding. 6 By the present proceeding ("the Fourth Proceeding") the applicant seeks review of the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal mentioned earlier. In this proceeding also the applicant moved for an urgent hearing during the Court vacation. He said that he was in a position to have this proceeding heard finally today. So was Mr Markus, the solicitor from the Australian Government Solicitor's Office, who represents the Minister. These reasons for judgment relate to that final hearing. 7 The reasons for decision of the Tribunal dated 24 December 1999 are, in their relevant part, quite short and I can come immediately to the critical point. Under the Migration Regulations 1994 certain criteria must be satisfied for the granting of a Bridging E (Class WE) Visa, Sub-Class 050 (General). Relevantly, the applicant must satisfy one or other of the following subclauses: