Federal Court Jurisdictional Errors Assignment

Oversight
Judge Siopsis of the Federal court, having heard the matter that was before
him, raised concerns of jurisdictional errors on the delegate’s side.1 The
judge concluded that the delegate did not in any way understand nor
appreciate Karan’s situation and issues. The judge analyzed the case and
further concluded that the claims raised by Karan are somewhat different
from what the delegate ruled against.5
Judge Siopsis clearly draws a line between the two scenarios where he
presumes that the delegate’s decision was based on a mere divorce case
whereas in real sense Karan’s matter is too compelling and compassionate
and whose effects were more adverse than what the delegate approximated.
In this regard, having satisfied the conditions to obtain a waiver for the 8503
condition of the Australian Immigration law, 1 the judge ruled in favor of
Karan. The ruling is justified as the condition for a waiver stands if there are
issues in the applicant’s life that are not within his/ her control. The fact that
Karan’s wife was physically abused by her former husband and now that she
is at risk of further mental and psychological torture in Karan’s absence as
proven by the psychologist, makes this entire issue to be an occurrence that
is out of Karan’s control. Judge Siopsis’ ruling is thus justified.
The significance of the ruling by Judge Siopsis in favor of Karan at the
expense of the delegate shows that there is actually a legal way through
1Bollard Paul, Australian Immigration Law Practice Continuing Professional Development (10 Point Program, 2005)
3Crock Mary and Laurie Berg, Immigration, Refugees and Force Migration-Law, Policy and Practice in Australia (10 Point Program, 2011

which a person can successfully and easily challenge a delegate’s refusal to
grant one a waiver. This can be possible in case there are some compelling
and passionate issues in one’s life that are out of their control. Judges in
courts also try to evaluate the presence of any form of discrepancies and
jurisdictional errors in the case at hand. In case there is any, like in the case
of Karan versus the immigration and protection minister. Karan wins the case
easily without even having to explain more to the court.3
Statutory interpretation principles adopted by judge Siopsis
These are the laws and principles that govern the process through which
judges and magistrates interpret and put legislation into real application
when solving real cases and which mostly involve a statute.2 In our case
study, Judge Siopsis uses three main statutory interpretation principles
among them literal rule, mischief rule and the golden rule. It is through these
principles that judge Siopsis makes a ruling in favor of Karan.2
Literal rule is when the judge makes a ruling based on the ordinary writings
and contents of the statute.8 The words contained in the statute are given
are naturally interpreted by using whatever is written. In the case study at
hand, Judge Siopsis is consistent with the provisions of condition 8503 which
requires that the presence of situations that are out of one’s control may
lead to the grant of the waiver. The facts that his wife will suffer more in his
2Cheryl Saunders and Adrienne Stone, The Oxford Handbook of the Australian Constitution (Oxford University Press, 2018)
8Marcus Andrew and Semyonov Moshe, Immigration and Nation Building: Australia and Israel Compared (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010)