Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Fernando v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1471
NO QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s48 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) Sch 2, para 833.212(b) and (d) WEERAKONDA ARACHCHIGE MAHESH PUSHPALAL FERNANDO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS V645 of 2000 MARSHALL J MELBOURNE 23 OCTOBER 2000
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V645 of 2000
BETWEEN: WEERAKONDA ARACHCHIGE MAHESH PUSHPALAL FERNANDO
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER: 23 OCTOBER 2000
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of, and incidental to, the application. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V645 of 2000
BETWEEN: WEERAKONDA ARACHCHIGE MAHESH PUSHPALAL
FERNANDO
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MARSHALL J
DATE: 23 OCTOBER 2000
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The substantive proceeding in this matter is an application made by the applicant, Mr Fernando, for an order of review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal ("MRT"). By its decision dated 1 August 2000, the MRT affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse to grant Mr Fernando a Change in Circumstance (Residence) (Class AG) visa sub-class 833 ("the visa"). 2 At [7] of its reasons for decision, the MRT set out its understanding of Mr Fernando's history of applying for visas in order to remain in Australia. The MRT said as follows: "The Visa Applicant first arrived in Australia on a Tourist (Short Stay) Visa Sub-class 676 on 29 December 1995 and was granted permission to remain in Australia until 29 March 1996. On 2 January 1996 he applied for and was granted a Sri Lankan (Temporary) visa, subclass 435, valid until 29 July 1996. On 29 July 1996 he applied for and was granted a Sri Lankan (Temporary) visa, subclass 435, valid until 31 July 1997. On the expiry date of his visa, the Visa Applicant applied for a further Sri Lankan (Temporary) Visa, sub-class 435, which was refused on 6 August 1997. On 27 June 1997 the Visa Applicant applied for a Protection Visa Sub-class 866 but this was refused on 16 July 1997. The Visa Applicant applied for a review of the further Sri Lankan (Temporary) Visa, sub-class 435, on 1 August 1997 but this was found to be invalid on 30 October 1997. On 8 December 1997 the Visa Applicant applied for a further Sri Lankan (Temporary) Visa, sub-class 435, which was refused on 9 December 1997. On 30 November 1998 the Visa Applicant made application for a Change of Circumstances (Residence) Class AG visa Sub-class 806 – Family (Special Need Relative) which was refused on 23 March 1999 and finally determined by a differently constituted Tribunal on 27 October 1999. On 19 November 1999 the Visa Applicant made application for a Change of Circumstances (Residence) Class AG visa Sub-class 806 – Family (Carer) but the Visa Applicant was advised on 31 January 2000 that the application was invalid. On 24 February 2000 the Visa Applicant lodged the application now under review."
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