Matete v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 187

Matete v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 187

Section 476A(1) of the Migration Act precludes original jurisdiction of the Federal Court over the applicant’s migration decision; thus, the objection to competency is upheld and the application is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Teina Matete; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration & Citizenship; Second Respondent: Migration Review Tribunal; Third Respondent: Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Immigration Judicial Review / Original Application to Federal Court; Objection to Competency
Outcome
Application dismissed; objection to competency upheld; costs awarded against applicant.
Legal Topics
Visa Cancellation, Federal Court Jurisdiction, Immigration Detention, Habeas Corpus, Jurisdictional Error
Migration Law Administrative Law Visa Cancellation Federal Court Jurisdiction Immigration Detention Habeas Corpus 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teina Matete

Applicant

Minister for Immigration & Citizenship

First Respondent

Migration Review Tribunal

Second Respondent

Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Judicial Review / Original Application to Federal Court; Objection to Competency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to review the Migration Review Tribunal's affirmation of visa cancellation under s 476A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether applicant's detention is lawful

Ratio Decidendi

Section 476A(1) of the Migration Act precludes original jurisdiction of the Federal Court over the applicant’s migration decision; thus, the objection to competency is upheld and the application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; objection to competency upheld; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • The notice of objection to competency filed by the first and third respondents be upheld.
  • The application be dismissed.