Tangilanu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 589

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tangilanu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 589 File number: VID 332 of 2016

Judge: NORTH J

Date of judgment: 6 May 2016

Legislation: Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) regulations 2.16(1), (2D), 4.10 and subclauses 461.212(1), 461.212(2) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 66(1), 338, 347(1)(b), 476(1), (2)(a), (4), 476A, 494B, 494C

Date of hearing: 6 May 2016

Registry: Victoria

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category: No Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 25

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr C Hibbard

Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS VID 332 of 2016

BETWEEN: ALUNGAMONU TANGILANU Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION Respondent

JUDGE: NORTH J DATE OF ORDER: 6 MAY 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application is dismissed. 2. The applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the application fixed at $2,178. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

NORTH J: 1 On 20 April 2016, the applicant, Mrs Alungamonu Tangilanu, applied for an extension of time on the basis of an affidavit sworn on 18 April 2016. The applicant has been self-represented, and the form of the application, as will become clear, was not directed to the issue which the court needed to consider. In her affidavit the applicant said, in part: I want justice with the jurisdiction errors by the Immigration Delegate…he declined my application for New Zealand citizen partnership. 2 On 24 November 2014, the applicant applied for a New Zealand Citizen (Family Relationship) (Temporary) (class UP) subclass 461 visa. The application was rejected by a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, on 22 January 2015. 3 Cl 461.212(1) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) provided that the applicant had to meet the requirements of subclause (2), (3) or (4) in order to qualify for the grant of the visa. The subclause relevant to the applicant was 461.212(2)(a), which provided that: An applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if the applicant is a member of the family unit of: (a) a person who is in Australia as the holder of a Subclass 444 (Special Category) visa; 4 The delegate reasoned as follows: The applicant does not meet the criterion in subclause 461.212(1) because the applicant does not meet the requirement of subclause 461.212(2) because the applicant is not a member of the family unit of a person who is in Australia as the holder of a Subclass 444 (Special Category) visa. Background 14/11/2014 The person who is in Australia as the holder of a Subclass 444 (Special Category) visa departed Australia. 24/11/2014 The applicant made an application for a New Zealand Citizen Family Relationship (Temporary)(Class UP)(Subclass 461) visa 02/12/2014 The person who is in Australia as the holder of a Subclass 444 (Special Category) visa arrived in Australia.