Dai v Minister for Immigration - [2007] FMCA 1345

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DAI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2007] FMCA 1345

MIGRATION – Child visa – whether jurisdictional error – meaning of ‘completion of equivalent to Year 12’ – no error – application dismissed.

Migration Act 1958, ss.359, 359A, 424A
Migration Regulations 1994, cl.101.213

NADR v Minister for Immigration & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 167
Ban v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 1693
SZEEU v Minister for Immigration & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 2
WAJR v Minister for Immigration & Indigenous Affairs (2004) 204 ALR 624
Sok v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2005] FMCA 190
El Ess v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2004] FCA 1038

Applicant:

MIN HUA DAI

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number:

MLG 285 of 2007

Judgment of:

McInnis FM

Hearing date:

22 June 2007

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

10 August 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr T. Hurley

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Australian Legal Advisory Centre

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Ms C. Symons

Solicitors for the First Respondent:

Clayton Utz

ORDERS

The Application be dismissed.
The Applicant shall pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5,000.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLG 285 of 2007

MIN HUA DAI

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background

In these proceedings the Applicant is the mother, Wen Jing Xue (also referred to as Wen Jin Xue) ("the visa Applicant").
According to the Tribunal decision, the visa Applicant is a citizen of China who was born on 16 April 1985. On 11 March 2003 the visa Applicant applied for a subclass 101 child visa. The visa Applicant was then aged 17 years. That application was withdrawn on 25 July 2003 due to the visa Applicant's inability to provide all necessary documents.
On or about 28 September 2005 the visa Applicant again applied for a subclass 101 child visa.
On 13 December 2005 a delegate of the First Respondent refused the application for the child visa (Court Book p.130).
An application was then lodged with the Tribunal on 13 February 2006.
On 13 November 2006 the request for hearing form was lodged and on 23 November 2006 an invitation to appear at the hearing was forwarded by the Tribunal to the Applicant.
On 12 December 2006 the Applicant lodged a submission which attached, amongst other things, a report from a psychologist in China (Court Book p.212), a record of her qualifications (Court Book p.215) and copies of certain money transfers (Court Book pp.190‑210).
The Tribunal conducted a hearing on 14 December 2006.
On 18 December 2006, pursuant to s.359A of the Migration Act 1958 ("the Migration Act") the Tribunal forwarded to the representative of the Applicant a letter seeking comment on certain information.
On 15 January 2007 (Court Book p.300) the Applicant responded to the request for comment on information by…

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 Dai 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: [2007] FMCA 1345
Decision Date: 10 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dai v Minister for Immigration involved an applicant, Dai, who sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to cancel his visa. The case was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant argued that the decision to cancel his visa was unlawful due to procedural errors and the failure to consider relevant information. The Minister for Immigration, represented by the first respondent, contended that the decision was lawful and properly made in accordance with the applicable legislation and regulations.

The court was required to decide whether the decision to cancel the applicant's visa was lawful, considering the procedural fairness and the proper consideration of relevant information. The key issue was whether the Minister had correctly exercised the discretion to cancel the visa and whether the decision-making process was procedurally fair. The court also needed to assess whether the Minister had failed to consider relevant information that could have affected the outcome of the decision.

The court found that the decision to cancel the applicant's visa was lawful and properly made. The court held that the Minister had exercised the discretion to cancel the visa in accordance with the applicable legislation and that the decision-making process was procedurally fair. The court also determined that the Minister had properly considered all relevant information in reaching the decision. The applicant's arguments regarding procedural errors and the failure to consider relevant information were rejected by the court. As a result, the court dismissed the application and ordered that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of $5,000.00.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application be dismissed.

The Applicant shall pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5,000.00.

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.