Detailed Case Analysis: Hasan v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship

This assignment is a case study analyzing the legal implications of the Hasan v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2010] FCA 375 case. The case involves a dispute over the validity of a visa application refusal notification. The appellant argued that the notification did not comply with section 66(2)(d)(iv) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by failing to provide all the places where an appeal could be made. The Federal Court ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the notice must contain all possible venues for appeal to avoid confusion and ensure justice. The decision also addressed the timeframe for making an appeal, clarifying that it begins only after proper notification. The implications of the decision are significant, highlighting the importance of accurate and complete notifications by the Department of Immigration to ensure that applicants are aware of their rights to appeal and the locations where they can do so.

Running head: MIGRATION LAW
Migration Law
Name of the student
Name of the University
Author note

1
MIGRATION LAW
Facts and Background
In the case of Hasan v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2010] FCA 375, the
appellant had been provided with the notification by the department of immigration with
respect to the reviews of a visa application. Generally there were five places at which an
application could be made by the applicant in relation to the refusal of the visa. However the
above mentioned notification only content two places where the application for Visa refusal
could be made. After about 5 months when the letter had been send the appellant hard
launched a review application with respect to the decision of the delegate in the
administrative appeal Tribunal. The application was not heard by the Tribunal and stated that
it had been received outside the time provided by regulation 4.10(1)(a) of the Migration
Regulation 19941. The appeal had been allowed by the court and the order made by the
federal magistrate judge had been set aside. The court also issued a writ of mandamus and
order the respondent to pay the appellants cost2.
The reasons for decision
According to Section 66(2)(d)(iv) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) the notice had to
contain all the places where and review application can be made by the applicant. However it
was held by the magistrate Court that providing to location where the application could be
made was enough to comply with the provisions provided in section 66(2)(d)(iv)3. According
to the Interpretation Act 1901 Section 15AA while interpreting any provisions of legislation
the meaning should be provided in such a way so as to achieve the object or purpose of the
legislation4. The federal court in its ruling stated that the object of the legislation was only to
provide a place where the application could be made.
1 the Migration Regulation 1994 (Cth) at Reg. 4.10(1)(a)
2 [2010] FCA 375
3 The Migration Act 1958 (Cth) at section 66(2)(d)(iv).
4 Interpretation Act 1901 at Section 15AA

2
MIGRATION LAW
However the decision of the magistrate Court was criticized by the federal court and it
provided that plane meaning has to be provided to the provisions of act where the provisions
are clear and provide effect to the purpose of that. The court held that adopting an alternative
meaning to the provisions related to the notification which would provide that any place
could be stated in the notification for the purpose of lodging an application for review would
have some possibly inconvenient unfair unjust or irrational results. If such meaning is given
to the section it would allow the ministers to refer any place which may not be suitable for the
person whose visa have been refused. Thus, a person who is staying in Perth may be provided
an address in Brisbane for the purpose of making a review application. Such a situation may
also lead to significant difficulties for any person to whom the notice has been addressed and
such person may be respected for making a proper application due to unavailability of
knowledge regarding the place of launching the application. There for the construction
through which a notice must contain all places where are application could be made not only
avoids any confusion discussed above but also provides convenience and Justice without
placing any additional burden on the Minister. While making such a decision the judges
departed from the interpretation of the section which had been provided in the case of
Maroun v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship5.
The appellant wanted an order which would provide that the tribunal have to
determine the application for review which had been filed by the appellant on 19th March.
According to regulation 4.10(1)(a) the period till which the review application could be made
starts from the day and notice has been provided and ends within 21 days of such period. It
was argued by the respondent that section 347(1)(b) of the MA does not allow an appeal after
the period has elapsed. However such submission was rejected by the court and a relief had
been granted to the appellant.
5 [2009] FCA 1284

3
MIGRATION LAW
The implications of the decision
The decisions of the court implied that the notice made by the department under section 66(2)
(d)(iv) has to provide all the venues and address where the appeal against the decision can be
made. The decision also implied that the time of making an appeal would not initiate unless a
proper notice has been provided to a person whose visa application has been refused. The
decision had some troubles for the system in case a valid notification is not made by the
department the time to launch an appeal would not be initiated. Such as interpretation as
argued by the delegate of the mister may have extreme consequences for the system.

4
MIGRATION LAW
Bibliography
Hasan v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2010] FCA 375
The Interpretation Act 901
The Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
The Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)