Kaur v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Anor
Case No.
S43/2011
Related Matters:
S10/2011 - Plaintiff S10/2011 v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
S49/2011 - Plaintiff S49/2011 v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
S51/2011 - Plaintiff S51/2011 v. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor
Case Information
Catchwords
Citizenship and migration — Migration — Ministerial discretion — Procedural fairness — Section 351 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("Act") empowers first defendant ("Minister") to substitute decision of Migration Review Tribunal ("MRT") made under s 349 of Act with another decision more favourable to an applicant, if Minister thinks it is "in the public interest to do so" — Plaintiff granted Subclass 573 Higher Education Sector student visa in September 2005, expiring in August 2008 — In June 2006, Minister's delegate notified plaintiff by letter that she had been granted Subclass 573 Higher Education Sector student visa with permission to change education provider — Letter stated plaintiff's visa valid until June 2008 — Plaintiff applied for Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa in September 2008 — Applications for Subclass 572 visas must be made within 28 days after day when last substantive visa ceased to be in effect: Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Sched 2, sub-item 572.211(3)(c)(i) — Minister's delegate refused plaintiff's application for Subclass 572 visa because application filed out of time — MRT rejected plaintiff's application for review of delegate's decision — Plaintiff unsuccessfully applied for Ministerial intervention under s 351 of Act — Federal Court of Australia rejected plaintiff's application for review of decision of MRT — Plaintiff again sought Ministerial intervention under s 351 of Act — In January 2011, Minister's delegate informed plaintiff that second Ministerial intervention application would not be forwarded to Minister — Whether Minister and or second defendant through his officers failed to accord procedural fairness to plaintiff by considering information or matters adverse to plaintiff without providing plaintiff with opportunity to know about or comment on those matters — Whether second defendant through his officers denied plaintiff procedural fairness by failing to apply Minister's Guidelines correctly — Whether jurisdictional error occurred irrespective of privative clause in s 474(2) of Act.
Documents
21/01/2011 Application for an order to show cause
27/05/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
07/07/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
08/07/2011 Amended Application for an order to show cause
29/07/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
01/09/2011 Amended Application for an order to show cause
13/09/2011 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)
28/10/2011 Written submissions (Plaintiff)
08/11/2011 Chronology
09/12/2011 Written submissions (First and Second Defendants)
23/12/2011 Reply
23/12/2011 Chronology (First and Second Defendants)
23/12/2011 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
04/01/2012 Amended Notice of Constitutional Matter
01/02/2012 Reply to intervener (Plaintiff)
07/02/2012 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra)
08/02/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
09/02/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)
07/09/2012 Judgment (Judgment summary)