Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 68

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 68 Appeal from: Kumar v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2015] FCCA 3377

File number: VID 896 of 2015

Judge: JESSUP J

Date of judgment: 9 February 2016

Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Date of hearing: 9 February 2016

Registry: Victoria

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category: No Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 4

Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr S Rebikoff

Solicitor for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS VID 896 of 2015

BETWEEN: MANISH KUMAR Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

JUDGE: JESSUP J DATE OF ORDER: 9 FEBRUARY 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal be added as the second respondent in the appeal and the Notice of Appeal be amended accordingly. 2. The appeal be dismissed. 3. The appellant pay the costs of the respondent Minister. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia given on 18 November 2015, in which that court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal, made on 12 February 2015, in which the Tribunal affirmed an earlier decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister not to grant the appellant a Skilled (Residence) (Class VB) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). 2 The notice of appeal contains five grounds, but the appellant did not file a written submission in support of those grounds. When he appeared in the court this morning, his arguments were brief and, I would have to say, unhelpful if his project was, as it should have been, to demonstrate that the Federal Circuit Court was in error in not discerning the existence of jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal. Comprehensive written submissions were filed on behalf of the respondent Minister, and they appear to deal satisfactorily and completely with the broad grounds advanced in the Notice of Appeal. 3 Neither from a perusal of the reasons of the Federal Circuit Court themselves nor from any other circumstance in the case I am led to the conclusion that that court was in error to have dismissed the appellant's application. In the light of the extreme brevity of the case which the appellant has sought to advance in support of his grounds, and the self-evident correctness of the judgment below, I do not think I need, or ought, to say anything further on this occasion. 4 The appeal will be dismissed. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jessup.