Hossain v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 634

Hossain v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 634

The applications for leave to appeal were refused because the applicants raised no arguable matter and did not show sufficient doubt about the correctness of the Federal Circuit Court judgments. The applicants were not prejudiced by the delayed written reasons, there was no evidence of bias, the alleged s 359A information was part of the delegate's decision provided to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal was not required to consider compelling personal circumstances under cl 602.212(8) because the applicants did not meet the necessary requirements in cl 602.212(6)(a)–(e). The same reasoning applied to Alif Rahman and Salma Rahman.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Applications for Leave to Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Orders Dismissing Applications for Judicial Review of Visa Refusal Decisions / Federal Court Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal refused; costs ordered in favour of the first respondent; Emdad Hossain appointed as litigation representative for Alif Rahman.
Legal Topics
['medical Treatment (visitor) (class Ub) Visa' 'subclass 602 (medical Treatment) Visa Criteria' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders' 'section 359 a Information' 'bias or Predetermination' 'litigation Representative']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['medical Treatment (visitor) (class Ub) Visa' 'subclass 602 (medical Treatment) Visa Criteria' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders' 'section 359 a Information' 'bias or Predetermination' 'litigation Representative']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Applications for Leave to Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Orders Dismissing Applications for Judicial Review of Visa Refusal Decisions / Federal Court Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the Federal Circuit Court's dismissal of the judicial review applications." "Whether delayed provision of written reasons by the Federal Circuit Court prejudiced the applicants' ability to present their applications for leave to appeal." 'Whether the Federal Circuit Court judge had a pre-conceived view or was biased.' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to put information to the applicants under s 359A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' 'Whether the Tribunal was required to consider compelling personal circumstances under cl 602.212(8) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).' "Whether Alif Rahman's father should be appointed as his litigation representative."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for leave to appeal were refused because the applicants raised no arguable matter and did not show sufficient doubt about the correctness of the Federal Circuit Court judgments. The applicants were not prejudiced by the delayed written reasons, there was no evidence of bias, the alleged s 359A information was part of the delegate's decision provided to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal was not required to consider compelling personal circumstances under cl 602.212(8) because the applicants did not meet the necessary requirements in cl 602.212(6)(a)–(e). The same reasoning applied to Alif Rahman and Salma Rahman.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal refused; costs ordered in favour of the first respondent; Emdad Hossain appointed as litigation representative for Alif Rahman.

Orders

  • ['NSD 2086 of 2018 and NSD 2088 of 2018: The application for leave to appeal be refused.' "NSD 2086 of 2018 and NSD 2088 of 2018: The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application." "NSD 2087 of 2018: Pursuant to r 9.63 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the applicant's father (Emdad Hossain) be...