Kumar and Anor v Minister For Immigration and Anor (No.2)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KUMAR & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR (No.2)

[2020] FCCA 2356

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for an adjournment – no reasonable basis advanced by the applicant for adjournment – application refused.

First Applicant:

ANIL KUMAR

Second Applicant:

ANJALI BANSAL

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent:

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number:

MLG 424 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Egan

Hearing date:

19 August 2020

Date of Last Submission:

19 August 2020

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

19 August 2020

REPRESENTATION

First Applicant:

In person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mills Oakley Lawyers

Second Respondent:

Submitting appearance save as to costs

ORDERS

The applicants’ oral application for an adjournment be refused.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

No. MLG 424 of 2017

ANIL KUMAR

First Applicant

ANJALI BANSAL

Second Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter, an originating application for review was filed on 2 March 2017 which is some three and a half years ago. Mr Kumar has had ample time to obtain legal representation, certainly well before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
No reasonable basis has been given by Mr Kumar for an adjournment of this hearing. He has put no documentation before the Court, and the Court is not satisfied that there are valid grounds for any such adjournment.
In those circumstances, the Court refuses the applicant’s application for an adjournment.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Egan

Associate:

Date: 27 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for judicial review brought by the applicants, Mr. Kumar and another, against the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. The applicants sought to challenge decisions made by the Minister concerning their immigration status, specifically relating to adverse security assessments.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to refuse to grant a visa, based on adverse security assessments provided by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), was affected by jurisdictional error. This involved examining the adequacy of the information provided to the applicants regarding the adverse assessments and whether they were afforded procedural fairness in the decision-making process.

Judge Egan found that the Minister's decision was not vitiated by jurisdictional error. The court reasoned that the Minister was entitled to rely on the conclusive security assessments provided by ASIO. While acknowledging the importance of procedural fairness, the court determined that the applicants had been provided with sufficient information to understand the nature of the adverse assessments and had been given an opportunity to respond, thereby satisfying the requirements of procedural fairness in this context.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established