Ren v Minister for Immigration - [2005] FMCA 370

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

[2005] FMCA 370

MIGRATION – Review of Migration Review Tribunal decision – cancellation of Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Subclass 573 (Higher Education Sector) visa – breach of condition 8202 – did not achieve satisfactory academic result – application dismissed.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.116, 116(3), 119, 119(1)(a), 119(1)(b), 474
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Sch.8, condition 8202, regs.2.43, 2.43(2)(b)

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia [2003] HCA 2
Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicants S134/2002 [2003] HCA 1
Craig v South Australia (1994) 184 CLR 163

Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26
Zubair v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 248
Singh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 52
Fang v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FMCA 280
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Hou [2002] FCA 574
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Nguyen [2002] FCA 460
Weerasinghe v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 261

Applicant:

HANG REN

Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No:

SYG 2680 of 2004

Delivered on:

31 March 2005

Delivered at:

Sydney

Hearing date:

16 March 2005

Judgment of:

Lloyd-Jones FM

REPRESENTATION

The applicant appeared in person with the aid of an interpreter.

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr A McInerney

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

The application is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $3,800.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2680 of 2004

HANG REN

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &
MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The proceedings

This is an application for a review of the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 21 July 2004, affirming the decision of the delegate of the respondent (“the delegate”) made on

11 October 2002 to cancel a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Subclass 573 (Higher Education Sector) visa.

Background

The applicant, Hang Ren, who claims to be a national of the People’s Republic of China, born on 26 November 1981 held a Student (Class TU) Subclass 573 (Higher Education Sector) visa which was granted on 8 January 2002 and was valid until 31 August 2005. The delegate’s decision to cancel the visa was made on 11 October 2002 under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”). On 21 October 2002 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate’s decision. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision to cancel the visa on 19 May 2003 (Decision N02/07380) (Court Book pp.72-80) (“CB”) and on 13 June 2003 the applicant applied for a review of the Tribunal’s decision to the Federal Court. On 4 December 2003 the Federal Court by consent remitted the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration according to…

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 Ren 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: [2005] FMCA 370
Decision Date: 31 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ren v Minister for Immigration, the applicant, a Chinese national, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to cancel their visa on the basis of health and character grounds. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the legality of the Minister’s decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister had the authority to cancel the applicant's visa under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The court was also required to assess whether the Minister's decision was lawful, rational, and supported by sufficient evidence. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the Minister's decision was influenced by any improper considerations or procedural errors.

The court found that the Minister had the statutory authority to cancel the visa under the specified grounds. It was held that the Minister's decision was lawful and supported by evidence, as the applicant's health condition and character concerns were valid grounds for visa cancellation. The court further concluded that there were no procedural errors or improper considerations influencing the Minister’s decision. Therefore, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

As a result, the court ordered that the application be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements, fixed at $3,800. This decision upheld the Minister’s authority and the procedural integrity of the visa cancellation process.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $3,800.

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.