Rizzotti v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 172

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rizzotti v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 172 Immigration – Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa – whether Migration Review Tribunal misconstrued expression "supplier of services" in cl 457.223(8) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.

Migration Regulations, Sch 2, cll 457.111(2)(a); 457.511(a); 457.223(6), (8). Migration Legislation Amendment Act (No.1) 1998 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl.41. Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 476(2)(b), (3)(d), (e). Explanatory Statement, Migration Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules No. 76 of 1996. IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1, cited. Collector of Customs v Agfa-Geveart Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 389, cited. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Hu (1997) 79 FCR 309, cited. LUCA ALESSANDRO RIZZOTTI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 1228 of 2000 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 6 MARCH 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1228 OF 2000

BETWEEN: LUCA ALESSANDRO RIZZOTTI

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER: 6 MARCH 2001

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 1228 OF 2000

BETWEEN: LUCA ALESSANDRO RIZZOTTI

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE: 6 MARCH 2001

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal ("MRT") given on 23 October 2000. The MRT affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent ("the Minister") refusing to grant the applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa. 2 The applicant is an Italian citizen, born on 16 February 1971. He arrived in Australia on 10 April 1997, on a visitor's visa. On 29 September 1997, the applicant lodged an application for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, sub-class Business (Long Stay). The application was accompanied by a letter detailing the applicant's claims. The letter was written on his behalf by a firm of solicitors. 3 The provisions governing the grant of a Temporary Business Entry (Long Stay) visa, permit the holder of a visa, who is in Australia at the time of the grant, to remain in this country for a period of up to four years from the date of the grant: see Migration Regulations, Schedule 2, cl 457.511(a). The applicant stated in his application of September 1997 that his proposed period of stay in Australia at that time was three years. 4 The pace of the administrative decision-making process in this case cannot be described as excessively rapid. On 24 September 1998, one year after the initial application was lodged, the Minister's delegate decided to refuse the grant of a visa. This decision was affirmed by a review officer on 19 February 1999. The applicant lodged his application for review with the Immigration Review Tribunal on 17 March 1999. This became an application for review to the MRT on 1 June 1999 by virtue of the transitional provisions of the Migration Legislation Amendment Act (No1) 1998 (Cth), Sch 1, cl 41. The MRT did not make its decision until 23 October 2000, more than eighteen months after the application for review had been lodged with the Immigration Review Tribunal and more than three years after the applicant had lodged his initial application for a Temporary Business Entry (Long Stay) visa. In the result, the administrative decision-making process extended beyond the period for which the applicant had said he wished to remain in Australia.