Haque v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1077

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Haque v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1077

MIGRATION – review of decision of Migration Review Tribunal – refusal of Student (Temporary) visa – Tribunal decision made without conducting a hearing – whether the Tribunal was under an obligation to invite the applicant to appear before it – whether Tribunal took "further action" to obtain the additional information – whether the Tribunal had extended the period within which the information was required to be given Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 358, 359, 359B, 359C, 360, 476, Migration Regulations 1994 regs 4.17, 4.18A, 5.03 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Mohammed [2000] FCA 1275; 101 FCR 434 cited MOHAMMED ASHADUL HAQUE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 592 of 2001 BRANSON J SYDNEY 9 AUGUST 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 592 of 2001

BETWEEN: MOHAMMED ASHADUL HAQUE

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 9 AUGUST 2001

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The decision of the Tribunal be affirmed. 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 592 of 2001

BETWEEN: MOHAMMED ASHADUL HAQUE

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE: 9 AUGUST 2001

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION 1 The applicant has applied to the Court under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") for review of a judicially reviewable decision of the Migration Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). On 18 April 2001 the Tribunal decided to affirm a decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse to grant to the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa. 2 The Tribunal made its decision of 18 April 2001 without conducting a hearing. The only ground of review ultimately relied on by the applicant was that a procedure that was required by the Act to be observed in connection with the making of the decision was not observed (s 476(1)(a) of the Act). The applicant submitted that the Tribunal was under a statutory obligation to "invite the applicant to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review" (subs 360(1) of the Act). The respondent accepts that the Tribunal did not invite the applicant to appear before it. 3 For the reasons which are set out below, I have concluded that, in the circumstances which happened, the Tribunal was not under an obligation to invite the applicant to appear before it. As the only ground upon which the applicant sought review of the decision of the Tribunal has not been established, the decision of the Tribunal must be affirmed.