FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

Martinez v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship (No 2) [2008] FCA 1995 



 


 


 


 


 


ALEJANDRO TORO MARTINEZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP and ANOR

 

NSD 1791 of 2008

 

 

 

 

EMMETT J

5 DECEMBER 2008

SYDNEY



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1791 of 2008

 

BETWEEN:

ALEJANDRO TORO MARTINEZ

Applicant

 

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

 

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

 

 

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 DECEMBER 2008

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

 

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

 

1.                   The proceeding be dismissed as incompetent.

2.                   The costs of this proceeding be treated as costs in proceeding NSD 1100 of 2008.


Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1791 of 2008

BETWEEN:

ALEJANDRO TORO MARTINEZ

Applicant

 

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

 

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

 

 

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

5 DECEMBER 2008

PLACE:

SYDNEY


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     This proceeding was commenced by filing an affidavit and draft notice of appeal on 18 November 2008 seeking an extension of time to appeal from a decision of the second respondent, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal), affirming a decision of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (the Minister), cancelling a visa held by the applicant under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2                     The appeal is incompetent since no appeal lies from a decision of the Tribunal under the Act.  Although Constitutional writ relief may have been available had the proceeding been commenced in time, the time within which a proceeding had to be commenced has expired.  Accordingly, the Court no longer has jurisdiction to deal with an application for a Constitutional writ in this proceeding.

3                     However, in proceeding 1100 of 2008 which was commenced within time, the applicant proposes to continue seeking Constitutional writ relief.  In the circumstances, it is appropriate that this proceeding be dismissed as incompetent.

 

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.



Associate:


Dated:         14 January 2008


The Applicant appeared in person.

 

 

 

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Ms A Crittenden

 

 

Solicitor for the First Respondent:

Clayton Utz


Date of Hearing:

5 December 2008

 

 

Date of Judgment:

5 December 2008