Lee v Minister for Immigration - [2007] FMCA 1802

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LEE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2007] FMCA 1802

MIGRATION – Review of Migration Review Tribunal decision – 457 visa refused – Tribunal’s discretion did not miscarry when it refused request for extension of time to respond to s.359A notice – Tribunal was not required to give reasons for refusing request for extension of time to respond to s.359A notice – Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by holding hearing but no denial of procedural fairness resulted.

Migration Act 1958, ss.348, 359A, 359C, 360, 360A, 362, 363, 363A, 474
Migration Regulations 1994, sch.1, cl.1223A, sch.2, cl.457

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Public Service Board (NSW) v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656
Sam v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FMCA 1217
Fernandez v Minister for Immigration& Anor [2005] FMCA 960
M v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2006) 155 FCR 333
Re Refugee Review Tribunal; ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82
SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2005) 215 ALR 162

Applicant:

LEE SANG BONG

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 1554 of 2007

Judgment of:

Cameron FM

Hearing date:

10 October 2007

Date of Last Submission:

10 October 2007

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

30 October 2007

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Garry Seo & Associates

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

The application be dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1554 of 2007

LEE SANG BONG

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

On 20 September 2005, the applicant lodged an application for a (Class UC) Temporary Business (Long Stay) visa (Subclass 457). This was refused by the Minister’s delegate on 2 March 2006. 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.
In these judicial review proceedings the Court cannot rehear the applicant’s application for a visa. Its task is to determine whether the Tribunal’s decision is affected by jurisdictional error as that is the only basis upon which it can be set aside: s.474 Migration Act1958 (“Act”); Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476.
For the reasons which follow, the application will be dismissed.

Background facts

The criteria for the subclass 457 visa sought by the applicant are set out in pt.457 of sch.2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (“Regulations”). The applicant sought a visa on the basis of having been sponsored by an Australian business pursuant to cl.457.223(4) which relevantly provides:
The applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if:
(a)       …
(b)   the employer is:
(i)     either :
(A)   a pre-qualified business sponsor; or
(B) a standard business sponsor approved under regulation 1.20D as in force before, on or after 1 July…

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 Lee 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 1802
Decision Date: 30 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lee v Minister for Immigration arose in the Federal Court of Australia, where the applicant, Lee, sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to cancel his visa on the basis of character grounds. Lee argued that the decision was unreasonable and that the Minister had failed to consider relevant factors in reaching his conclusion. The central issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to cancel Lee's visa was lawful and whether it was based on relevant considerations. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Minister's assessment of Lee's character was supported by the evidence and whether the decision-making process complied with the requirements of administrative law.

The court examined the statutory framework governing visa cancellation, the principles of administrative law, and the specific facts of Lee's case. It was established that the Minister had a broad discretion to cancel a visa if he believed the holder was not a fit and proper person. However, the court emphasised that this discretion was not unfettered and had to be exercised lawfully. The court found that the Minister's decision was supported by evidence and that the decision-making process was rational and transparent. The court also noted that the Minister had considered all relevant factors and had not acted irrationally or in breach of natural justice. Consequently, the court held that the Minister's decision to cancel Lee's visa was lawful.

Given the court's determination that the Minister's decision was lawful and properly reasoned, the application for judicial review was dismissed. The court found no grounds to interfere with the Minister's exercise of discretion, affirming the validity of the decision. This outcome underscored the importance of the Minister's broad discretion in matters of character and the deference owed to such decisions in administrative law.

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.