Ismail v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 1187

Ismail v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 1187

The Federal Magistrate did not err because the Tribunal correctly applied clause 421.230 by identifying the relevant primary criterion as the requirement that the appellant have an established reputation in the field of sport, and by deciding that it was not satisfied there was no reason to believe the appellant did not continue to satisfy that criterion. The Tribunal's conclusion was supported by Badminton Australia's opinion, the appellant's competition results since 2004, and his inability to play since April 2007, and it also rested independently of any departmental policy issue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Migration Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['subclass 421 Sport Visa' 'judicial Review' 'migration Review Tribunal' 'established Reputation in the Field of Sport' 'application of Migration Regulations Sch 2 Cll 421.222 and 421.230' 'departmental Policy']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['subclass 421 Sport Visa' 'judicial Review' 'migration Review Tribunal' 'established Reputation in the Field of Sport' 'application of Migration Regulations Sch 2 Cll 421.222 and 421.230' 'departmental Policy']

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 Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Magistrate erred in finding that the Tribunal correctly applied clause 421.230 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.' "Whether the Tribunal asked the wrong question by considering whether the appellant had an established reputation in the field of sport at the time of the Tribunal's decision." 'Whether the Tribunal went beyond the Regulations by applying policy requiring endorsement from a national sporting body.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Magistrate did not err because the Tribunal correctly applied clause 421.230 by identifying the relevant primary criterion as the requirement that the appellant have an established reputation in the field of sport, and by deciding that it was not satisfied there was no reason to believe the appellant did not continue to satisfy that criterion. The Tribunal's conclusion was supported by Badminton Australia's opinion, the appellant's competition results since 2004, and his inability to play since April 2007, and it also rested independently of any departmental policy issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal." 'Liberty is reserved to all parties to apply to the court for further orders and directions as to the costs of this appeal.']