Tuiketei v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 206

Tuiketei v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 206

The appeal was dismissed because none of the grounds was made out. The primary judge did not deny procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment or by the manner in which the judicial review hearing was explained; the appellant had ample time to prepare, was given an opportunity to read the Minister's submissions, and laid no proper foundation for an adjournment. The Tribunal did not misapprehend or misapply s 5CB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) or regs 1.09A and 2.03A of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth); its adverse findings about the claimed de facto relationship were open on the evidence, it considered the circumstances presented to it, and there was no basis to interfere with its...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Judicial Review Decision / Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['partner (temporary) (class Uk) Visa' 'de Facto Relationship' 'compelling and Compassionate Circumstances' 'procedural Fairness' 'adjournment' 'jurisdictional Error']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['partner (temporary) (class Uk) Visa' 'de Facto Relationship' 'compelling and Compassionate Circumstances' 'procedural Fairness' 'adjournment' 'jurisdictional Error']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Judicial Review Decision / Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the primary judge denied procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment after the self-represented appellant had only read the Minister's submissions at the hearing." 'Whether the primary judge failed to explain in simple terms the nature of the judicial review proceeding and what the appellant needed to show.' 'Whether the Tribunal misapprehended or misapplied s 5CB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in assessing whether the appellant and sponsor were in a de facto relationship.' 'Whether the Tribunal misapprehended or misapplied regs 1.09A and 2.03A of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), including by failing to consider age, cultural matters, memory issues, and compelling and compassionate circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because none of the grounds was made out. The primary judge did not deny procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment or by the manner in which the judicial review hearing was explained; the appellant had ample time to prepare, was given an opportunity to read the Minister's submissions, and laid no proper foundation for an adjournment. The Tribunal did not misapprehend or misapply s 5CB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) or regs 1.09A and 2.03A of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth); its adverse findings about the claimed de facto relationship were open on the evidence, it considered the circumstances presented to it, and there was no basis to interfere with its...

Court Disposition

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs, assessed in the sum of $4,427.00."]