1 / 6

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs vs. Teoh 1995

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs vs. Teoh 1995. Facts. Malaysian citizen moved to Australia on a temporary entry permit. On 9 th July he married Jean Helen Lim, an Australian citizen who was the de facto spouse of his deceased brother, where Mrs Lim had four children.

amory
Download Presentation

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs vs. Teoh 1995

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs vs. Teoh 1995

  2. Facts • Malaysian citizen moved to Australia on a temporary entry permit. • On 9th July he married Jean Helen Lim, an Australian citizen who was the de facto spouse of his deceased brother, where Mrs Lim had four children. • In October of 1988, Mr Teoh applied and was granted a further entry permit, which allowed him to remain till 1989. • He applied for a permanent entry permit.

  3. Facts • November 1990, his permit was still pending, Mr Teoh was convicted of six counts of importation of heroin and a further three counts of possession. • He was sentenced to six years imprisonment.

  4. Facts • Under the migration Act 1958 his residency application was denied for the following reasons. • 1.1 Has to be of good character • 1.2 No criminal record • 1.3 If your over 16 you have to meet all the requirements

  5. Facts • He appealed unsuccessfully to the migration review panel. • Referred appeal for residency to the high court. • Mr Teoh argued if he was deported they would be violating the CROC art 3.1 and 9.1, because he could no longer care for his children.

  6. Decision • The High court found Mr. Teoh did have a right to have an Int. Convention considered in his application for residency. • As ratification is seen as a legitimate expectation to act in the manner as dictated by CROC. • Treating the best interests of the children as a ‘primary consideration.’

More Related