Roussev v Minister of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1661

Roussev v Minister of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1661

Because s 475(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) excludes a Ministerial decision not to exercise, or not to consider exercising, power under s 417 from judicial review, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's application; the respondent's objection to competency was therefore upheld and the application dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for an Order of Review Under the Migration Act 1958 (cth) / Respondent's Notice of Objection to Competency
Outcome
Notice of objection to competency upheld; application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'ministerial Intervention Under S 417' 'judicial Review Jurisdiction' 'objection to Competency']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'ministerial Intervention Under S 417' 'judicial Review Jurisdiction' 'objection to Competency']

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

Application for an Order of Review Under the Migration Act 1958 (cth) / Respondent's Notice of Objection to Competency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to review the Minister's decision not to exercise, or not to consider exercising, power under s 417 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)." 'Whether costs should be ordered against the applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because s 475(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) excludes a Ministerial decision not to exercise, or not to consider exercising, power under s 417 from judicial review, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's application; the respondent's objection to competency was therefore upheld and the application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notice of objection to competency upheld; application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The notice of objection to competency filed by the respondent be upheld.' 'The application filed by the applicant be dismissed.' 'There will be no orders as to costs.']