FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| LIU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2014] FCCA 936 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Review of decision Migration Review Tribunal decision – Refusal of grant of a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Applicant failed to establish there were exceptional reasons for the grant of a visa – Application dismissed. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), cl.570.227 |
| Applicant: | HAOJIE LIU |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 1069 of 2013 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Lloyd-Jones |
| Hearing date: | 7 March 2014 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 16 May 2014 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | The Applicant appeared in person with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter. |
| Solicitor for the First Respondent: | Mr R. Ray of Clayton Utz |
| The Second Respondent: | The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice of appearance. |
ORDERS
The name of the First Respondent be amended to read “Minister for Immigration and Border Protection”.
The application filed on 17 May 2013 be dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1069 of 2013
| HAOJIE LIU |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an application under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the “Migration Act”) seeking judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), being MRT Case Number 1109629, a decision of Tribunal Member S. Durvasula dated 23 April 2013, affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (at the time of the decision the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (the “Minister”), to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.
In accordance with the Court’s orders made on 18 June 2013 the solicitors for the first respondent, the Minister, were required to file a folder which was to be indexed, labelled and paginated, containing all documents which may be relevant to the hearing. This order was complied with and the volume of material provided is identified as the Court Book (“CB”), and has been marked Exhibit “A”.
By orders made by the Court on 18 June 2013, the applicant…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Liu 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
- [2014] FCCA 936
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the MRT had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant's claim that exceptional circumstances warranted the grant of the visa. This involved considering whether the MRT had properly applied the relevant legislative provisions and whether its findings of fact were supported by evidence, particularly in relation to the applicant's circumstances and their alleged exceptional nature.
Lloyd-Jones J found that the MRT had not erred in law. The Court reasoned that the Tribunal had undertaken a proper assessment of the evidence before it and had correctly concluded that the circumstances presented by the applicant did not meet the threshold of "exceptional reasons" as contemplated by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and associated regulations. The Tribunal's decision was therefore upheld.
The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs. The Court also ordered that the name of the First Respondent be amended to read “Minister for Immigration and Border Protection”.
Orders
Orders of the court
ORDERS
1. The name of the First Respondent be amended to read “Minister for Immigration and Border Protection”.
2. The application filed on 17 May 2013 be dismissed.
3. The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application.
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.