Fang, Li v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs

Fang Li, the applicant, brought an action against the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, challenging the decision to cancel her entry visa and deny her an entry permit. The dispute arose after the applicant was approved to enter Australia under the sponsorship of her husband, but her husband withdrew the sponsorship before the visa was issued. Unaware of this change, the applicant travelled to Australia, where she was refused entry at the airport. The Minister executed an instrument cancelling the visa in Beijing on the morning of the applicant's arrival in Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Minister was estopped from cancelling the visa due to the representation made by issuing the visa, whether the applicant was denied natural justice, and what the content of the rules of procedural fairness required in this context. Further, the court needed to determine whether the matter should be remitted for reconsideration, and whether the concept of a "legitimate expectation" constitutes a substantive head of administrative review or is incorporated in the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the applicant and her husband were "living separately and apart on a permanent basis," and whether the applicant had indeed entered Australia.

The court found that the Minister was not estopped from cancelling the visa as there was no representation that the visa was unconditional. The court also held that the applicant was not denied natural justice, as the rules of procedural fairness did not require the Minister to inform the applicant of the withdrawal of sponsorship before the visa was issued. The court held that a "legitimate expectation" does not constitute a substantive head of administrative review but may be incorporated in the principles of natural justice. The court concluded that the applicant and her husband were not "living separately and apart on a permanent basis," and that the applicant had not entered Australia.

The court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents' costs. The settlement and entry of orders are governed by Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.