Hudson v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2011] FCA 1134

Hudson v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2011] FCA 1134

The appeal is incompetent because the question raised is one of fact, not law; the Tribunal properly applied the law as interpreted by the Full Court and made findings open to it on the evidence; no error of law is established.

Parties
Applicant: Neo Wang Hudson; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Judgment on Competence and Merits of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Citizenship by Descent, Legal Meaning of Parent, Appeal on Question of Law
Administrative Law Citizenship Law Citizenship by Descent Legal Meaning of Parent Appeal on Question of Law

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neo Wang Hudson

Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Judgment on Competence and Merits of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal is competent as being on a question of law under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in law in applying s 16(2) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) regarding the meaning of 'parent' for citizenship by descent

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is incompetent because the question raised is one of fact, not law; the Tribunal properly applied the law as interpreted by the Full Court and made findings open to it on the evidence; no error of law is established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondent's costs, fixed in the sum of $5,000.