Long Fei Li v Minister for Immigration & Anor (Corrigendum)
[2006] FMCA 667
•28 April 2006
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| LONG FEI LI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR (CORRIGENDUM) | [2006] FMCA 667 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Migration Review Tribunal decision – cancellation of a Student Subclass 571 Visa – matter dismissed for non-appearance – application for reinstatement – application dismissed. |
| Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.359A Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth), s.20 |
| Yo Han Chung v University of Sydney & Ors [2002] FCA 186 NAKX v Minister for Immigration [2003] FCA 1559 |
| Applicant: | LONG FEI LI |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| Second Respondent: | MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File number: | SYG2152 of 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Lloyd-Jones FM |
| Hearing date: | 28 April 2006 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 28 April 2006 |
REPRESENTATION
| Advocate for the Applicant: | The applicant appeared in person with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter |
| Advocate for the Respondents: | Ms B Griffin |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The application for reinstatement is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the reinstatement application, fixed in the sum of $1,000.
CORRIGENDUM
Judgment delivered by Lloyd-Jones FM on 28 April 2006 as [2006] FMCA 667
Ammend paragraph 14 to read:
Ms Griffin, appearing for the respondents, objected to previous orders being set aside on a number of grounds.
Amend paragraph 19 to read:
The applicant’s original application was seriously defective in that it did not identify any jurisdictional error, was vague and unparticularised. The applicant was provided with an opportunity to rectify the situation at the first directions hearing and was provided with an opportunity to undertake this rectification. The applicant failed to attend a directions hearing as clearly notified in the original order and no attempt was made to notify the Court officers or the respondents’ solicitors of his inability to attend.
I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the Corrigendum to the Judgment [2006] FMCA 667 of Lloyd-Jones FM.
Associate:
Date: 31 May 2006
0
0
3