Kim v Minister for Immigration

[2015] FCCA 887

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KIM & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2015] FCCA 887

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Migration Review Tribunal – subclass 892 State/Territory Sponsored Business Owner (Residence) visa – application dismissed.

First Applicant: HYANG SIK KIM

Second Applicant: JAEWOOK JANG

Third Applicant: HYUNWOOK JANG

Fourth Applicant: YUN KWON JANG

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 621 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 9 April 2015

Date of Last Submission: 9 April 2015

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 9 April 2015

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Mr J.H Kim

El Khan Legal

Solicitors for Respondent Ms B. Griffen
Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. Application be dismissed.

2. Applicant pay first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1000.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 621 of 2015

YANG SIK KIM

First Applicant

JAEWOOK JANG

Second Applicant

HYUNWOOK JANG

Third Applicant

YUN KWON JANG

Fourth Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter, Mr Kim, solicitor, appeared for the applicants.  The Court identified that the application failed to identify an arguable jurisdictional error and that the Court was minded to consider whether the matter should be summarily dismissed. 

2. Mr Kim informed the Court that his instructions were to withdraw the application.  The first respondent asked for costs of the proceedings.

3. The Court notes this was an application in which it was also necessary for the applicant to obtain an extension of time. Proceedings can be discontinued in accordance with the Rule 13.01 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules but proceedings cannot be withdrawn. In the circumstances, the Court orders that the application be dismissed and the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1000.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Associate: 

Date:  14 April 2015