Choi v Minister for Immigration - [2009] FMCA 83

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHOI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2009] FMCA 83

MIGRATION – Review of Migration Review Tribunal decision – student visa – proceedings commenced out of time – Court must have regard to when applicant actually received notification of the Tribunal decision – as proceedings out of time Court had no jurisdiction.

Migration Act 1958, ss.116, 379A, 379C, 477
Migration Regulations 1994, reg.2.43, cl.8202 of sch.8
Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, s.20
Evidence Act 1995, s.163

SZKNX v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCAFC 176
SZFMW v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1862
Dai v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship (2007) 165 FCR 458
Tongburin v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FMCA 644
Qui v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FMCA 787
Brar v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FMCA 1026

Applicant:

SYE HO CHOI

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 2417 of 2008

Judgment of:

Cameron FM

Hearing date:

6 February 2009

Date of Last Submission:

6 February 2009

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

17 February 2009

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person.

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

The application be dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2417 of 2008

SYE HO CHOI

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The applicant was granted a Subclass 573 Higher Education Sector visa on 16 August 2004 which was cancelled on 7 March 2006 by a delegate of the first respondent (“Minister”) pursuant to s.116 of the Migration Act 1958 (“Act”). That cancellation was made on the basis that the applicant had breached condition 8202 of his visa by failing to achieve satisfactory course attendance. The applicant then applied to the Migration Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) for a review of that departmental decision. The applicant was unsuccessful before the Tribunal and has applied to this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision.
For the reasons which follow, the application will be dismissed.

Relevant law

The relevant version of condition 8202 as found in sch.8 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (“Regulations”) is the version that was applicable at the time of the initial visa grant. The version which applied on 16 August 2004 relevantly provided:
(1) The holder (other than the holder of a Subclass 560 (Student) visa who is an AusAID student or the holder of a Subclass 576 (AusAID or Defence Sector) visa) must meet the requirements of subclauses (2) and (3).
(2)     …
(3)     A holder meets the requirements of this subclause if:
(a) in the case of a holder whose education provider keeps attendance records – the Minister is satisfied that the holder attends for at least 80% of the contact hours scheduled:
(i)      for a course that runs for less than a semester – for the course; or
(ii)     for a course that runs…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Choi v Minister for Immigration and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] FMCA 83
Decision Date: 17 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Choi v Minister for Immigration involved a dispute between the applicant, Choi, and the Minister for Immigration regarding the refusal of a visa application. The application was dismissed by the Federal Court of Australia. Choi, a South Korean national, sought to appeal against the Minister's decision to cancel his visa on the basis of character grounds. The applicant claimed that he had been unfairly targeted due to his political beliefs and that the decision-making process was flawed.

The court was required to determine whether the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was lawful and whether the process by which it was made was fair. The key issues included whether the Minister had correctly identified a valid reason for visa cancellation under the Migration Act, whether the decision-making process was procedurally fair, and whether there was any error in the application of the law. The court also needed to consider whether the Minister's decision was affected by bias or whether there were any relevant considerations that were not taken into account.

The court held that the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was lawful and that the process was procedurally fair. It found that the Minister correctly identified grounds for visa cancellation under the Migration Act and that the decision-making process adhered to the necessary legal standards. The court rejected Choi's claims of bias and found no errors in the application of the law. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming the Minister's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application be dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.