Rajput v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 518 (5 August 2005)

--

Rajput v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 518 (5 August 2005)

Last Updated: 25 August 2005

[2005] HCATrans 518

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M18 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

MUHAMMED WASIM RAJPUT

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 5 AUGUST 2005, AT 8.53 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J: The Migration Review Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the Transitional (Permanent) (Class BF) subclass 154 (Resident Return Visa) of the applicant, a Pakistani national, on the grounds that the reasons for cancelling the applicant’s visa outweighed the reasons against cancellation, which were enumerated in Reg 2.41 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). The reasons to cancel the visa were that the applicant had breached s 101 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by giving an incorrect answer to question 34 on Part B of Form 1816 on 12 July 1994 and breached s 103 by giving bogus documents to an officer of the respondent and to the Tribunal.

The Federal Magistrates Court dismissed the applicant’s application because the applicant failed to appear at the hearing.

The Federal Court refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal on the ground that the applicant had failed to demonstrate any basis on which the Federal Magistrates Court had erred in reaching its decision to dismiss the applicant’s application.

The applicant’s special leave application complained that he was not notified of the date of the hearing in the Federal Magistrates Court and so, he was not accorded procedural fairness. However, the Federal Court had noted the applicant’s claim that he had not received notice of the Federal Magistrates hearing, and had informed the applicant that that matter must be raised before the Federal Magistrates Court. There is no ground for doubting the correctness of the decision of the Federal Court.

An appeal would have no prospect of success. The application must be dismissed.

Under the power conferred by r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application. I publish our joint reasons.

AT 8.53 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED