Truong v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 1188

Truong v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 1188

Mr Truong's application was incompetent as he failed to comply with directions to seek judicial review; even had it been made, retrospective legislative provisions validated the delegate's cancellation of his visa under s 501(2), and the legal argument presented would have failed on the authority of Martinez v Minister (No 2).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision / Judgment at First Instance in Federal Court
Outcome
Application dismissed as incompetent. Applicant ordered to pay Minister's costs.
Legal Topics
['visa Cancellation' 'character Test Under S 501 of the Migration Act' 'judicial Review' 'retrospective Validation of Decisions']

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

Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision / Judgment at First Instance in Federal Court

  1. 1 ["Whether there were errors of process in the cancellation of Mr Truong's visa" "Whether the Tribunal's decision was vitiated by jurisdictional error after retrospective legislative validation" 'Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Truong's application was incompetent as he failed to comply with directions to seek judicial review; even had it been made, retrospective legislative provisions validated the delegate's cancellation of his visa under s 501(2), and the legal argument presented would have failed on the authority of Martinez v Minister (No 2).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed as incompetent. Applicant ordered to pay Minister's costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the proceeding."]