FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
COT15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2)
[2015] FCAFC 191
Table of Corrections | |
23 December 2015 | The file number on the cover page, orders and reasons pages has been corrected. |
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
Appellant | |
AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | SAD 166 of 2015 |
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
BETWEEN: | COT15 Appellant |
AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent |
JUDGES: | NORTH, COLLIER AND FLICK JJ |
DATE: | 22 DECEMBER 2015 |
PLACE: | ADELAIDE |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an appeal from orders made by the Federal Circuit Court on 18 May 2015. The Federal Circuit Court dismissed an application for a review a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal made on 31 July 2014. The Tribunal determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision of the delegate of the first respondent, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, to refuse to grant Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas to the appellant’s wife and children.
2 The reason the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction was that, in order for the Tribunal to review the decision of the delegate, the visa applicants had to be sponsored by an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen.
3 At the time of the Tribunal decision, the visa of the appellant, who was the sponsor of his wife and children, had been cancelled.
4 The cancellation of the visa was upheld by the Tribunal and the Tribunal decision was challenged before the Federal Circuit Court. The challenge to the present decision of the Tribunal was heard and determined at the same time as the challenge to the cancellation decision.
5 Counsel for the appellant in the Federal Circuit Court conceded that if the challenge to the cancellation decision failed, the challenge to the present decision would also necessarily fail.
6 In the result, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the challenge to the cancellation of the appellant’s visa, and, in consequence, dismissed the application for review of the present decision.
7 On 9 June 2015, the appellant filed a notice of appeal from the orders made by the Federal Circuit Court. The ground of appeal was dependent on the success of the appeal against the cancellation decision.
8 The name of the appellant has been anonymised at his request and with the consent of the Minister.
9 This Court heard the appeal in respect of the current decision and the appeal in respect of the cancellation decision together. The Court has dismissed the appeal in respect of the cancellation decision (COT15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 1) [2015] FCAFC 190). It follows that the present appeal must also fail.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices North, Collier and Flick. |
Associate:
