Singh & Ors v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 157 (11 March 2005)

--

Singh & Ors v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 157 (11 March 2005)

Last Updated: 22 March 2005

[2005] HCATrans 157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M205 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

JASWINDER SINGH

First Applicant

HARJPINDER SINGH

Second Applicant

GURPAWAN SINGH DHILLON

Third Applicant

SUKHRAJ SINGH DHILLON

Fourth Applicant

JASKARAN SINGH DHILLON

Fifth Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

KIRBY J
HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 11 MARCH 2005, AT 11.41 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

KIRBY J: This application for special leave to appeal to this Court is, by the agreement of the parties, to be decided on the basis of written arguments. Those arguments have been considered by the Court.

The case concerns the refusal to the applicant under the Migration Regulations 1994 of a Family (Residence) (Class AO) visa sought on the basis that the applicant was a “special need relative” of his sister who has been an Australian citizen since 1994. The visa was refused by the delegate of the Minister, a decision affirmed by the Migration Review Tribunal. The applicant then applied for judicial review to the Federal Magistrates Court. That Court, whilst criticising some of the language of the Tribunal’s decision, declined relief. The Full Court of the Federal Court constituted by Chief Justice Black and Justices Sackville and Sundberg dismissed an appeal.

The applicant’s argument before the Full Court, which he now seeks to repeat in this Court, is that the Tribunal had incorrectly addressed itself to his capacity to help his sister, as distinct from his sister’s permanent or long-term need for assistance. The distinction is elusive, given that the capacity is relevant to answering the alleged need.

In any case, we are not convinced that the Full Court erred in its reasons or its orders. The application lacks reasonable prospects of success. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The applicant must pay the Minister’s costs.

AT 11.44 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED