Liu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 1158

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Liu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
[2005] FCA 1158

XUEREN LIU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 749 OF 2005

MOORE J
28 JULY 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 749 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	XUEREN LIU APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	28 JULY 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.  The appeal be dismissed.

2.  The appellant pay the respondent's costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 749 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	XUEREN LIU APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	28 JULY 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 28 April 2005, dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 26 May 2004.

2. The appellant applied to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs for a temporary business entry (Class UC) visa.  A delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs refused to grant the appellant the visa on 4 September 2003.  The appellant sought view of a decision of the delegate before the Tribunal. 

3. It is unnecessary to set out in detail the basis upon which the visa was sought. A criteria for the visa was that the appellant was sponsored by a business operating in Australia and that sponsor had approval of the type contemplated by the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). While the appellant sought to obtain approval for the sponsorship by an employer, he has been unsuccessful. Indeed, the refusal to approve the nominated sponsor has been the subject of litigation both before the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court, and this Court.

4. In this Court, Jacobson J dismissed an appeal by a company, with which the present appellant is associated, and the appellant:  Liu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 716. There was no appearance for either the appellant and that company. At the time the matter to which this appeal relates was determined by the Federal Magistrate, Jacobson J had not given his judgment. However, the position now is that there is no approved sponsor and the appellant has exhausted avenues of appeal to challenge the refusal to approve the sponsor. Thus the position is, as it was before the Federal Magistrate, the criterion the appellant had to satisfy for the visa he sought were incapable of being satisfied.

5. The Federal Magistrate was correct in concluding that the Tribunal had not erred in affirming the decision of the delegate of the Minister to refuse the appellant the visa he sought.  The appellant has not demonstrated, indeed, has not sought to demonstrate today, any error on the part of the Federal Magistrate.  For this reason the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:             23 August 2005

The Appellant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	28 July 2005
Date of Judgment:	28 July 2005