FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| LE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2007] FMCA 401 |
| MIGRATION – Review of MRT decision − where the applicant was sent a notice under s.20 Education Service for Overseas Student Act on the basis of unsatisfactory academic results − where the applicant attended the interview with a delegate of the Minister − where the applicant applied for merits review − where the Tribunal did not take into account the applicant’s reasons for non-compliance with condition 8202 − whether the Tribunal was required to take into account any exceptional circumstances put forward by the applicant − whether mandatory cancellation of the student visa precludes the Tribunal from exercising its statutory jurisdiction including a consideration of exceptional circumstances under s.338 Migration Act − whether a substantive visa which has been cancelled remains effective pending the completion of a merits review. |
| Migration Act 1958, ss5, 14, 116(1)(b), 137, 166(3), 338, 349(3) Education Service for Overseas Students Act 2000, s.20 Migration Amendment Regulations 2005 (No.8) |
| Uddin v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 841 Minister for Immigration v Zhou [2006] FCAFC 96 Shrestha v Minister for Immigration (2001) 64 ALD 669 |
| Applicant: | MINH QUAN LE |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG1766 of 2006 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 8 March 2007 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 8 March 2007 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 27 March 2007 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr I Asuzu |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Australasia Migration & Legal Services |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Ms S Sirtes |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
Application dismissed.
Applicant to pay the first respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $4,750.00 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG1766 of 2006
| MINH QUAN LE |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This application raises the interesting question of the status of a decision of the Minister’s delegate where that decision is able to be reviewed by an independent Tribunal and the applicant has availed himself of the right to review.
Mr Ming Quan Le is a national of Vietnam who arrived in Australia on 23 May 2001 to study. He has held the following visas:
·Student Temporary (Class TU) 560 visa granted 15/5/01 until 30/7/02.
·Bridging A visa granted 25/7/02 until 14/8/02.
·Student Temporary (Class TU) 573 visa granted 15/8/02 until 31/10/02.
·Student Temporary (Class TU) 573 visa granted 31/10/02 until 23/9/05. [CB 119]
The last visa he held enabled him to enrol in a Bachelor of Science (Information Technology) Degree course at Curtin University of Technology Perth Western Australia. He proceeded in the course with the moderate success described by the Tribunal in [10] of the Tribunal’s decision at [CB 120]. In semester 1 of 2005 he failed two out of the three subjects which he had taken. On 19 August…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Le 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2007] FMCA 401
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the Minister's decision was lawful and whether the Minister exercised his discretion appropriately. The applicant argued that the decision was flawed on several grounds, including that the Minister failed to consider relevant material, misapplied the law, and made an error in assessing the applicant's character and health. The court had to examine the Minister's decision-making process, the relevant statutory provisions, and the evidence before the Minister to ascertain whether the decision was legally sound.
In its judgment, the court found that the Minister's decision was well within the scope of his discretion and was not legally flawed. The court concluded that the Minister had considered the relevant material, applied the correct legal principles, and made a decision that was not irrational. The applicant's arguments regarding the Minister's failure to consider certain material and errors in the assessment of character and health were rejected by the court. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the court ordered the applicant to pay the Minister's costs of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Application dismissed.
2.
Applicant to pay the first respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $4,750.00 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the
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.