Koloamatangi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 727

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Koloamatangi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 727 SULIANA KOLOAMATANGI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 276 of 2001 WHITLAM J 30 APRIL 2001 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 276 of 2001

BETWEEN: SULIANA KOLOAMATANGI

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &

MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WHITLAM J

DATE OF ORDER: 30 APRIL 2001

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 N 276 of 2001

BETWEEN: SULIANA KOLOAMATANGI

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &

MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WHITLAM J

DATE: 30 APRIL 2001

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 These proceedings commenced on 21 March 2001 when the applicant filed what purported to be an application for an order for a review in respect of a decision of the delegate of the respondent ("the Minister"). The Minister seeks summary dismissal of the application, not on the basis that there is no jurisdiction in the Court to deal with the matter, but that it would be futile for the matter to proceed. 2 The decision which is the subject of the application was made on 15 March 2001 in respect of a bridging visa which was granted to the applicant for a period expiring on 21 March 2001. Since that time the applicant has been granted two further bridging visas, one which expired on 28 March 2001 and another which expired on 27 April 2001. According to the applicant, who appears in person, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has not granted her a further visa pending resolution of the matter today. 3 In opposition to the application for summary dismissal, the applicant has reiterated matters set out in her affidavit filed on 24 April 2001 regarding her family circumstances and why she wishes to remain here with her citizen child. She stated that she wants her other children to be brought up in Australia and her husband to rejoin them if he can. 4 However, as I think the applicant understands, I do not have authority to deal with the merits of her application. Ms Dale Watson, the solicitor for the Minister, referred to the failed substantive applications many years ago and the fact that the applicant is a non-citizen who has remained in Australia after expiration of earlier substantive visas and the final determination of the relevant applications. Against that background, in my view, there is no prospect that another substantive application could be put on foot and granted while she is in Australia. 5 Accordingly, it seems to me that it would be futile to permit the matter to proceed. I will grant the Minister's motion and make an order that the application be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Whitlam.