Shrestha v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1843

Shrestha v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1843

The court held that there was no denial of procedural fairness to the appellants since they had notice of the hearing and no evidence they attempted to secure a new lawyer; the refusal to adjourn was not legally unreasonable in light of binding authority that required evidence of skills assessment at the time of visa application, regardless of the migration agent’s error.

Parties
First Appellant: Sugat Shrestha; Second Appellant: Swarna Giri Shrestha; First Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Visa Application Requirements, Judicial Review, Skills Assessment, Adjournment of Hearing
Migration Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Visa Application Requirements Judicial Review Skills Assessment Adjournment of Hearing

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sugat Shrestha

First Appellant

Swarna Giri Shrestha

Second Appellant

Minister for Home Affairs

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants provided with sufficient notice of Federal Circuit Court hearing
  2. 2 Whether primary judge unreasonably refused request to adjourn hearing
  3. 3 Whether appellants were denied procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there was no denial of procedural fairness to the appellants since they had notice of the hearing and no evidence they attempted to secure a new lawyer; the refusal to adjourn was not legally unreasonable in light of binding authority that required evidence of skills assessment at the time of visa application, regardless of the migration agent’s error.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellants pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed.