Federal Court of Australia Second Decision - Ground 3 (Exercise of a Discretionary Power
The applicant contended that the making of the decision that
he should be refused a visa on the grounds that he was not of
good character was an improper exercise of the power conferred
by s.180A(1) when read with s.180A(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. The
applicant relied on ss.5(1)(e) and 5(2)(g) of the ADJR Act.
The applicant claimed that the discretionary power to exclude
Mr. Irving because he was deported from Canada in November
1992, and further on the grounds of the German expulsion
order, was exercised in accordance with the policy enshrined
in paragraph 8.5.6 of the 1993 PAM Update without regard to
the merits of the particular case.
The answer to this complaint is that there is simply no
evidence to support it. Such evidence as there is on this
point (see paragraph 23 of Mr. Joseph's mintute dated 29 April
1994) indicates that it was made clar to the Minister that he
should not consider himself bound by the guildelines in the
1993 PAM Update and that he should carefully consider the
issue of Mr. Irving's character on its merits.
The
original plaintext version
of this file is available via
ftp.
[
Previous |
Index |
Next ]
Rules Against Irving
in Accordance with a Policy Without Regard to the Merits of
the Particular Case)