Ayoub v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 968

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ayoub v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 968

MAROUN AYOUB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 226 OF 2002 BRANSON J 6 AUGUST 2002 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 226 OF 2002

BETWEEN: MAROUN AYOUB

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 6 AUGUST 2002

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed.

2. There be no order as to costs.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 226 OF 2002

BETWEEN: MAROUN AYOUB

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE: 6 AUGUST 2002

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION 1 On 22 March 2002 the applicant completed, signed and filed a Form 5 application by which he purported to appeal against a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") dated 4 March 2002. The decision of the Tribunal affirmed a finding that the applicant is not entitled to a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa. The application does not explicitly identify the final relief sought by the applicant – although the use of the word "appeal" indicates that he sought to have the decision of the Tribunal set aside. 2 In support of his application the applicant filed an affidavit sworn jointly by him and Vicky Ayoub ("Ms Ayoub"). Ms Ayoub is the applicant's sister‑in‑law and Co‑Managing Director of the business "Crystal Marble Granite" (sometimes identified as Chrystal Marble & Granite) which sought to sponsor the applicant. The applicant speaks very limited English yet no affidavit was sworn by an interpreter deposing to the fact that the affidavit was read to the applicant in a language which he understands and that the applicant appeared to understand it (see Lindgren et al Federal Civil Litigation Precedents at [22,040] and Precedent 220.25). A likely inference is that Ms Ayoub explained the content of the affidavit to the applicant. 3 The first substantive paragraph of the affidavit is in the following terms: "Our request is to appeal against an MRT decision to refuse granting a Temporary Business Entry visa subclass UC. The MRT decision was made on 4 March 2002, Sydney. We feel that the decision was unfair, so we are exercising our right to appeal against the decision. The appeal is not on grounds of error in applying the Migration Act, however, it is based on error of fact."