Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Matete v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 187
TEINA MATETE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP, MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL and SECRETARY FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
NSD 5 of 2009
STONE J
24 FEBRUARY 2009
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 5 of 2009
BETWEEN: TEINA MATETE
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
SECRETARY FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Third Respondent
JUDGE: STONE J
DATE OF ORDER: 24 FEBRUARY 2009
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The notice of objection to competency filed by the first and third respondents be upheld. 2. The application be dismissed. 3. The applicant pay the first and third respondents' costs of the notice and of the proceeding. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 5 of 2009
BETWEEN: TEINA MATETE
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
SECRETARY FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Third Respondent
JUDGE: STONE J
DATE: 24 FEBRUARY 2009
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 24 February 2009 I made orders dismissing the application in this proceeding and undertook to provide reasons at a later date. These are my reasons. 2 On 7 August 2000 the applicant arrived in Australia from New Zealand on a New Zealand passport. On arrival he was granted a subclass 444 (special category) visa which is customarily granted to New Zealand citizens entering Australia; it entitles the holder to permanent residency in Australia with a right to travel in and out of Australia. 3 Pursuant to s 109 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) the applicant's visa was cancelled on 29 May 2007 by a delegate of the first respondent. The delegate found that the New Zealand passport which identified the applicant as Teina Antonio Tereia Matete had been fraudulently obtained, that his real name was Takave Pokoati and that he had been born on 13 November 1968, not 11 March 1969 as he had claimed in his visa application. In addition the applicant had failed to declare his criminal convictions in New Zealand. At the time of the cancellation of his visa the applicant had also been convicted of a number of criminal offences in Australia. 4 The applicant appealed against the cancellation of his visa to the Migration Review Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and to this Court. He was unsuccessful at each stage. In his reasons for dismissing the applicant's appeal Buchanan J in Matete v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1876 said at [24]-[25]: No basis has been established upon which it would be open to conclude that the [Migration Review Tribunal] acted beyond its jurisdiction in making the factual findings that it did or in the manner it assessed the appellant's claims to remain in Australia against those factual findings. I am satisfied that no error in the decision of the [Federal Magistrates Court of Australia] has been established, nor any jurisdictional error in the decision or processes of the [Migration Review Tribunal].
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate