Sultana v MIMA [1998] FCA 171

Sultana v MIMA [1998] FCA 171

The applicant was a principal applicant for the purposes of subclause 816.724(1), but after leaving Australia she returned on a Class 670 tourist visa which was not a "return visa" within clause 816.131 or subclause 816.724(2), because it was not granted on the basis of her status in Australia immediately before her...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 1998
Procedural Posture
Application to Review a Decision of the Immigration Review Tribunal / Reasons for Judgment in the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['class 816 Entry Permit' 'clause 816.724 of Schedule 2 to the Migration (1993) Regulations' 'return Visa' 'construction of Migration Regulations' 'judicial Review of Immigration Review Tribunal Decision']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['class 816 Entry Permit' 'clause 816.724 of Schedule 2 to the Migration (1993) Regulations' 'return Visa' 'construction of Migration Regulations' 'judicial Review of Immigration Review Tribunal Decision']

Source-derived case record

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

Application to Review a Decision of the Immigration Review Tribunal / Reasons for Judgment in the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether clause 816.724 applied to the applicant despite the omission of the definition of "principal applicant" from Part 816.' 'Whether the applicant\'s Class 670 visa was a "return visa" for the purposes of subclause 816.724(2).' 'Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of clause 816.724 for a Class 816 entry permit.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was a principal applicant for the purposes of subclause 816.724(1), but after leaving Australia she returned on a Class 670 tourist visa which was not a "return visa" within clause 816.131 or subclause 816.724(2), because it was not granted on the basis of her status in Australia immediately before her last departure. She therefore did not satisfy clause 816.724, and the Tribunal's decision was not shown to be erroneous on the argued construction.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed with costs.']