Onyebuchi v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1183
|
Review of: |
Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision in file number 2019/4846 delivered on 29 October 2019 |
|
|
|
|
File number(s): |
VID 1313 of 2019 |
|
|
|
|
Judgment of: |
ANDERSON J |
|
|
|
|
Date of judgment: |
19 August 2020 |
|
|
|
|
Catchwords: |
MIGRATION – applicant pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court of Queensland to one offence of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug contrary to ss 307.1(1) and 11.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) – delegate of Minister cancelled the applicant’s visa on the basis that the applicant did not pass character test because of the operation of s 501(6)(a) (substantial criminal record) and s 501(7)(c) (sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
MIGRATION – applicant self-represented – poorly cast, generalised grounds – reading purported grounds for substance rather than form – Tribunal’s decision was not affected by unreasonableness and was not made on basis of insufficient evidence – no denial of procedural fairness – no jurisdictional error demonstrated – application dismissed
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation: |
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), ss 33A(1), 43C and 44 Criminal Code (Cth), ss 11.2(1) and 307.1(1) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 4.12 and 4.17(b) Legal Services Directions 2017 (Cth), Schedule 1 Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5E, 474, 474A, 476A, 477, 477A, 499, 500, 501(1), 501(3A), 501(6)(a), 501(7)(c), 501CA(4) |
|
|
|
|
Cases cited: |
Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd (2013) 252 CLR 38 Australian Postal Corporation v D’Rozario [2014] FCAFC 89 ARG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 174 Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Splendido [2019] FCAFC 132 AXT19 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 32 BHK15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 569 Collins v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1981) 4 ALD 198 EVK18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 49 FTZK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 88 ALJR 754 GBV18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 17 Hay v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCAFC 149 Hooton v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCAFC 142 Hughes v The Queen (2017) 344 ALR 187 Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 390 Luy v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 405 Maan v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 906 McHugh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2020] FCA 843 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v BHA17 [2018] FCAFC 68 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SGLB (2004) 78 ALJR 992 Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v “SRT” [1999] FCA 1197 Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 Navoto v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 135 Re Application by the Chief Commissioner Of Police (Victoria) (2005) 214 ALR 422 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1 R v Onyebuchi; Ex parte Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2016] QCA 143 Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association v National Retail Association (No 2) [2012] FCA 480 Snedden v Minister for Justice for the Commonwealth of Australia [2014] FCAFC 156 Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 611 Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152 Tran v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 126 Viane v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 116 |
|
|
|
|
Division: |
|
|
|
|
|
Registry: |
|
|
|
|
|
National Practice Area: |
|
|
|
|
|
Number of paragraphs: |
138 |
|
|
|
|
Date of last submission/s: |
7 July 2020 |
|
|
|
|
Date of hearing: |
2 July 2020 |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Applicant: |
The Applicant appeared in person |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the First Respondent: |
Mr N M Wood |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the First Respondent: |
Sparke Helmore Lawyers |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Second Respondent: |
The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice |
ORDERS
|
|
VID 1313 of 2019 |
|
|
|
||
|
BETWEEN: |
EMMANUEL ONYEBUCHI Applicant
|
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Second Respondent
|
|
|
order made by: |
ANDERSON J |
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
19 August 2020 |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
-
The Applicant’s application is dismissed.
-
Insofar as the Applicant seeks relief in respect of the delegate’s decision, that purported appeal is dismissed.
-
The Applicant will pay the First Respondent’s costs of the proceeding.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ANDERSON J:
SUMMARY-
Mr Onyebuchi (Applicant) was convicted of importing a commercial quantity of methamphetamine, and sentenced to imprisonment for 9 years. His visa was cancelled. The Minister’s delegate decided not to revoke that cancellation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) affirmed that decision. The Applicant has applied to this Court for a review of the Tribunal’s decision.
-
The Applicant says the Tribunal’s decision should be set aside on the basis of (what can fairly be described as) some quite general “grounds”. The Applicant was self-represented in this Court. Even reading the Applicant’s purported grounds for their substance rather than their form, those purported grounds do not succeed. They must be rejected and the application must be dismissed.
-
Partly because the Applicant’s asserted grounds for setting aside the Tribunal’s decision were decidedly general, this judgment does not contain any elaborate elucidation of principle or detailed consideration of competing factual narratives. It involved the application of uncontroversial, settled principles to essentially uncontested facts.
-
In these circumstances, two functions of this judgment assume...
