dani123456 Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 Hi has anybody had there PR refused by MRT then gone down federal court route?? We have a lawyer and she said that us applying to federal court will take a year to go to court? however wen i put my Federal court appliaction in i got a date in september, Is this the first hearing to see if we have a case? or what happens after that?? Any information off anyone who gone down this path or going down this path? Thnak D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 Not something we see a lot of to be honest. When people get refused, there normally is a good reason for it and the applicant accepts it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaggieMay24 Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 I haven't heard of people taking their case to federal court. I've heard of going to Ministerial Intervention, which are seldom successful and I assume federal court would be similar. On what are you basing your case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VERYSTORMY Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 First I have heard in the years on here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 Federal Court is likely to be expensive. I don't think anyone on here would have experience with such a case or, if they did, that their experience would be directly useful to you. If you have questions, I would put them to your lawyer whilst being aware that every question you ask will result in both a reply and a bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Que Sera Sera Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 Hi has anybody had there PR refused by MRT then gone down federal court route??We have a lawyer and she said that us applying to federal court will take a year to go to court? however wen i put my Federal court appliaction in i got a date in september, Is this the first hearing to see if we have a case? or what happens after that?? Any information off anyone who gone down this path or going down this path? Thnak D You put, when YOU put your application in it said , why didn't your solicitor put your application in? Are you going against their advice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrussell Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Hi has anybody had there PR refused by MRT then gone down federal court route??We have a lawyer and she said that us applying to federal court will take a year to go to court? however wen i put my Federal court appliaction in i got a date in september, Is this the first hearing to see if we have a case? or what happens after that?? Any information off anyone who gone down this path or going down this path? Thnak D You can expect the first hearing to be a mention at which a date for a further hearing, possibly a 'directions hearing', would be set down. Presumably, to enliven the jurisdiction of the 'Federal Court', there is a point of law involved in the way the MRT dealt with your case. Your legal representative is the best person to advise you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy1 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 The only one who will probably win here is the Lawyer...............They have a vested interest in you fighting any case so if you feel the need to go that route you should be sure you want the bill the at end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 The only one who will probably win here is the Lawyer...............They have a vested interest in you fighting any case so if you feel the need to go that route you should be sure you want the bill the at end. If a lawyer gives incorrect advice or gives an unrealistic expectation of success in court then they can be crucified by their professional body. That doesn't mean they won't take on hopeless cases, but they must tell their clients that their chances are slim to none. We have no idea of the OP's circumstances or the advice the OP may have been given. I am surprised, though, that having engaged a lawyer, the OP is coming onto public forums for advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaggieMay24 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 I am surprised, though, that having engaged a lawyer, the OP is coming onto public forums for advice. I know, and yet how many posts include "my migration agent told me....is this true?" or something along that line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blossom Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 I know, and yet how many posts include "my migration agent told me....is this true?" or something along that line. I always checked everything I was told by agents. More were wrong than were right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrussell Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 The only one who will probably win here is the Lawyer...............They have a vested interest in you fighting any case so if you feel the need to go that route you should be sure you want the bill the at end. The advocate might be working pro bono, or no win, no fee. This might leave the OP out of pocket for the respondent/s' costs. To amuse myself I once took a case to the FCA (Russell v the Minister for immigration G75 of 1992) it cost me $4.17 for photocopying, plus train fares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petals Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 As you have decided to pay good money to a lawyer then you better have deep pockets and take her advice. Not many migrants take the Court way probably because of cost and that its not that successful as the migration people are pretty much told what to do by the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaggieMay24 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 I always checked everything I was told by agents. More were wrong than were right. Good point. When I got my 457, I simply filled in the forms the MA sent me and sent him the documents requested, and didn't question it at all. But this was a MA used by my employer and my employer are the type to only use someone tried and tested. If I were doing this all on my own, I'd probably do a lot of double-checking to make sure I knew what was being requested and why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 As you have decided to pay good money to a lawyer then you better have deep pockets and take her advice. Not many migrants take the Court way probably because of cost and that its not that successful as the migration people are pretty much told what to do by the government. I agree. Visa application been turned down, turned down again at MRT. I am intrigued as to why OP feels that this is a case worth pursuing, unfortunately some people just take it to the appeals process simply because they want a visa, not because there is any basis in their claims. If I were so sure I was entitled to a visa but had already been turned down at MRT, I think I would be tempted to just start a fresh application rather than take it through an expensive court case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blossom Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Yes, I would be starting a fresh application too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrussell Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Yes, I would be starting a fresh application too. If it was a remaining relative, carer, non-contributory parent, or one of various other repealed visa classes a fresh application would not be an option. It might be a case of the court or nothing. I know of some truly remarkable court wins v the minister. The migration legislation is a treasure trove of illiteracies made worse by attempts to apply 'policy' in place of defective legislation. I have held the view for some time that you sometimes need to reach the High Court to be heard by judges who have enough English to rule correctly on the wording of legislation. The migration legislation is a treasure trove of illiteracies made worse by attempts to apply 'policy' in place of defective legislation. Good luck to anyone who has a go at keeping the bastards honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.