Zapata v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 367

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Zapata v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 367 CYNTHIA OCAMPO ZAPATA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS V480 of 2002 WEINBERG J 28 APRIL 2003 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V480 OF 2002

BETWEEN: CYNTHIA OCAMPO ZAPATA

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WEINBERG J

DATE OF ORDER: 28 APRIL 2003

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be 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

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V480 OF 2002

BETWEEN: CYNTHIA OCAMPO ZAPATA

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WEINBERG J

DATE: 28 APRIL 2003

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background 1 This is an application to review a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") given on 27 June 2002. By that decision the Tribunal affirmed a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs that the applicant was not entitled to the grant of an Educational (Temporary) (Class TH) visa. 2 The application for an order of review was filed in this Court on 25 July 2002. The applicant was, and has been throughout, unrepresented, and it is therefore not surprising that the grounds in support of the application, to the extent that they may be so characterised, disclose no conceivable basis upon which jurisdictional error could be discerned.

Factual background 3 The applicant is a national of the Philippines. She first entered Australia on 9 August 1997 on a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 456 (Business (Short Stay)) valid until 9 September 1997. She returned to the Philippines on 24 August 1997. 4 On 16 February 1998 the applicant entered Australia on a further subclass 456 visa valid until 16 May 1998. On 3 June 1998 she was granted an Educational (Temporary) (Class TH) visa, subclass 442 (Occupational Trainee) valid until 2 March 1999. She has not held a substantive visa since that date. 5 The visa application presently under review was lodged on 1 March 1999 on the basis that the applicant had been nominated for occupational training in immigration matters by Silver Partners Pty Ltd, trading as Academic and Commerce Immigration Referral Centre ("the nominator"). The nominator proposed that the applicant be given training for nine to twelve months to enable her to gain adequate expertise in immigration matters so that she could manage an Australian based migration agent's operation in the Philippines. However, the nominator withdrew its support prior to a decision by the delegate, on 13 May 1999, to refuse the applicant the visa sought. An application for review of that decision by the Tribunal was lodged on 10 June 1999. 6 At the request of the applicant, the Tribunal deferred making a decision in relation to the review in order to allow her an opportunity to have a new nomination assessed by the then Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Department"). On 15 March 2000, R Luong Immigration Services ("the second nominator") came forward with a proposal that the applicant be trained to enable her to operate a branch in the Philippines on behalf of the second nominator. On 13 October 2000, that application was refused by the Department. The Tribunal affirmed that decision on 13 March 2001. However, on 13 April 2001, this Court ordered, by consent, that the decision be set aside, and that the matter be remitted to the Tribunal to be reconsidered. 7 The rehearing of the application by the Tribunal finally took place on 18 March 2002. By that date the second nominator was no longer a registered migration agent, and therefore not in a position to support the applicant. She told the Tribunal that she had been trying, unsuccessfully, for 15 months to find a third nominator, and requested the indulgence of a further period to enable her to find someone prepared to act in that capacity. She mentioned Mr Luong's brother, who was a registered migration agent, as well as several other possible sources. The Tribunal granted the applicant an adjournment for a period of two weeks, stating that it required written confirmation from any proposed new nominator that he or she could meet all the relevant requirements, under the Migration Regulations, including the provision of a training program, and the payment of appropriate wages. However, no further submission or nomination was received.