Boakye-Danquah v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 438

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Boakye-Danquah v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 438 MIGRATION – Application for spouse visa – Application supported by applicant's Australian-citizen spouse – Breakdown of marriage with alleged domestic violence before determination of application – Application refused – Application to Migration Review Tribunal for review of refusal dismissed – Two errors by Tribunal in interpretation of relevant regulation – One error resulted in Tribunal asking itself the wrong question – Effect of privative clause provision enacted in 2001. Migration Act 1958: ss 474, 475A, 476, 477, 483A, 484 Migration Regulations: cll 820.111, 820.211, 820.221 The King v Hickman; Ex parte Fox and Clinton (1945) 70 CLR 598 discussed Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR applied Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; 180 ALR 1 applied Walton v Ruddock [2001] FCA 1839 followed NAAX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 263 not followed NABE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 281 not followed Ratumaiwai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 311 referred to COMFORT BOAKYE-DANQUAH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N1489 of 2001 WILCOX J 11 APRIL 2002 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1489 OF 2001

BETWEEN: COMFORT BOAKYE-DANQUAH

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WILCOX J

DATE OF ORDER: 11 APRIL 2002

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. It be declared the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal dated 15 October 2001, affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, to refuse to grant the applicant, Comfort Boakye-Danquah, either a General (Residence) (Class AS) visa or an Extended Eligibility (Temporary) (Class TK) visa was made in excess of jurisdiction and is null and void. 2. The respondent pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with the proceeding. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.