Mouradian v Migration Review Tribunal [2001] FCA 1413

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mouradian v Migration Review Tribunal [2001] FCA 1413

ALBERT MOURADIAN v MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR N1120 of 2001

MADGWICK J 6 SEPTEMBER 2001 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1120 of 2001

BETWEEN: ALBERT MOURADIAN

APPLICANT

AND: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: MADGWICK J

DATE OF ORDER: 6 SEPTEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1120 of 2001

BETWEEN: ALBERT MOURADIAN

APPLICANT

AND: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MADGWICK J

DATE: 6 SEPTEMBER 2001

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (revised from transcript) HIS HONOUR: 1 This is a somewhat distressing matter. The applicant seeks an order of review under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") in respect of the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal ("the MRT") given on 27 June 2001. The MRT affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister refusing the applicant the grant of a Bridging Visa E (Class WE).

Background 2 Shorn of the daunting detail that surrounds the matter the applicant's relevant history seems to be as follows. He was born in Armenia on 19 July 1967. He arrived in Australia aboard the vessel MV Ben on 3 January 1999 from which he jumped ship. About a month later he approached the respondent's Department and lodged an application for a Protection (Class XA) visa claiming refugee status. On 8 March 1999, the applicant was granted a bridging visa of yet another category. 3 His application for a protection visa was refused on 10 March 1999 and he applied on 24 March 1999 to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT") for a review of that decision. On 7 November 2000, the RRT affirmed the decision of the respondent's delegate to refuse him the grant of a protection visa. 4 On 30 November 2000, the applicant asked the Minister to intervene, in the public interest, to make a more favourable decision in his favour than that of the RRT pursuant to s 417 of the Act. On the strength of that request the applicant was granted, on 15 December 2000, a Bridging E, Subclass 050 visa. Conditions were attached to that visa: that he should not work; that he should reside at a specified address; and that he should notify authorities of any change of address. The visa allowed him to remain in Australia subject to those conditions lawfully until 15 March 2001. On 8 March 2001, he asked in effect, for an extension of the bridging visa as the s 417 request was still outstanding. On 13 March 2001, a delegate of the respondent Minister, after interviewing the applicant, decided to cancel the bridging visa for breach of the "no work", "reside at specified address" and "notify change of address" conditions. 5 It appears that the applicant was at the time in a poor condition. A police officer had reported to the Department, on 8 March 2001, that the "Person of Interest", being the hapless applicant, "suffers from a Mental Illness and is a vagrant with no fixed place of abode". According to that officer, he had recently been involved in unspecified criminal activities. Despite the officialese, the reporting officer expressed concern as to the applicant's "welfare and personal safety". 6 The applicant was detained on 13 March 2001. The following day he made a further application, in effect for an extension of the bridging visa, which was refused two days later on 16 March 2001. On 22 March 2001, apparently, the respondent Minister decided not to intervene under s 417 of the Act as to the earlier unfavourable decision of the RRT, given on 7 November 2000, showing one may say a considerable turn of speed. On 27 March 2001, the MRT affirmed the decision of the delegate to not extend the bridging visa. 7 On 30 April 2001, the applicant again lodged an application for a "Bridging E" visa. A delegate of the respondent Minister refused the application on 3 May 2001, on the basis that no ground existed for the grant of such a visa. On 15 June 2001, the applicant lodged yet another application for a such a visa which three days later was refused by a delegate of the respondent and his application for review by the MRT was, again with great speed, rejected on 27 June 2001. It is this last decision of the MRT which the applicant seeks to now have reviewed in this Court.