Cujba v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 146

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Cujba v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 146

MIGRATION – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – judicially-reviewable decision – applicant had visa cancelled once he had passed through Immigration and Customs but before he had left the airport – whether applicant was still in "immigration clearance" Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 5, 166, 167, 172, 338, 474, 475 Customs Act 1901 (Cth) s 15 Customs Administration Act 1985 (Cth) s 14 Han v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1071 OLEG CUJBA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 1190 of 2000 BRANSON J SYDNEY 26 FEBRUARY 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1190 of 2000

BETWEEN: OLEG CUJBA

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE: 26 FEBRUARY 2001

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION 1 By an application dated 8 November 2000 Oleg Cujba ("Mr Cujba") sought review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister") on 13 October 2000. The decision of which review was sought was a decision made under s 116 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") to cancel a visa earlier granted to Mr Cujba. 2 The application as lodged with the New South Wales Registry of the Court does not identify any grounds upon which the application to the Court is made. However, I need not consider this topic any further in these reasons for decision as the Minister, by his counsel, indicated that he did not wish to argue that an application which does not identify any grounds upon which the application is made, within the time fixed by par 478(1)(b) of the Act, is a nullity. On 13 December 2000 the Minister filed a notice of motion which gave notice that he would seek an order pursuant to O 20 r 2(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules that the proceeding be dismissed as showing no reasonable cause of action. However, the Minister indicated on 23 February 2001 that he did not propose to move pursuant to his notice of motion. 3 The hearing and determination of Mr Cujba's application has been delayed for a regrettably long period of time to assist Mr Cujba in his efforts to obtain legal assistance. When this matter came before the Court on 23 February 2001, Mr Cujba was, for the first time, represented by counsel. Somewhat surprisingly, the first submission made on behalf of Mr Cujba by his counsel was a submission, made without notice either to the Minister or the Court, that the Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear and determine Mr Cujba's application. After hearing counsel for Mr Cujba and the Minister respectively, I ruled on that day that the Court does have jurisdiction to hear and determine the application. I indicated that I would subsequently publish reasons for my ruling. These are my reasons for so ruling.