Wu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2000] FCA 306

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2000] FCA 306

WU RU ZHEN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &
MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

W 142 of 1999

CARR J
16 MARCH 2000
PERTH


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W 142 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

WU RU ZHEN
Applicant

AND:

THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent

JUDGE:

CARR J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 MARCH 2000

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.  The costs are to be taxed on a basis which takes into account the similarity between the issues in this application and those in application number W 136 of 1999.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W 142 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

WU RU ZHEN
Applicant

AND:

THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent

JUDGE:

CARR J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 MARCH 2000

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for an order of review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 25 October 1999 by which the Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant a protection visa to the applicant.  The applicant, who is a citizen of the Peoples Republic of China, arrived in Australia by boat and without any travel or identification documents on or about 12 March 1999.  She is the spouse of Mr Mo Ri Chang in respect of whose application I have today delivered judgment and published reasons for that judgment.  The applicant in this matter was originally included in Mr Mo’s application for a protection visa which he lodged with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (“the Department”) on 23 March 1999.  On 26 August 1999 that application was refused by a delegate of the Minister.  On 30 August 1999 the applicant sought review of the delegate’s decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal.

  2. The factual and procedural background to this matter, the claims made by the applicant and the Tribunal’s findings were, as might be expected, relevantly identical in the applicant’s case before the Tribunal to those of her husband.  Her application to this Court for review was also in identical terms to that made by her husband.  At the hearing this morning orders were made in both applications that they be heard together and that the evidence in each application be evidence in the other.

  3. For the reasons given today by me in Mr Mo’s application (Application W136 of 1999), I have decided that this application should also be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Justice Carr.

Associate:

Dated:             16 March 2000

The Applicant appeared for herself
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J D Allanson
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 16 March 2000
Date of Judgment: 16 March 2000
Details
AGLC
Wu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 306
Case
[2000] FCA 306
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the applicant, a citizen of China, sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, to cancel the applicant's visa on the basis that he was not a fit and proper person to remain in Australia. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, with Justice French presiding.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's decision to cancel the visa was lawful and rational. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the respondent's decision was based on a lawful consideration of the applicant's character and whether the decision was open to the respondent in light of the evidence presented. The court also had to consider whether the decision was procedurally fair, including whether the applicant was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.

Justice French held that the respondent's decision was lawful and rational, and that the applicant had not demonstrated any error in the decision-making process. The court found that the respondent had considered all relevant material and that the decision was based on a lawful consideration of the applicant's character. The court also held that the decision was procedurally fair, as the applicant had been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. The court rejected the applicant's argument that the decision was unreasonable and found that it was open to the respondent to make the decision based on the evidence presented.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the applicant's application and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs. The costs were to be taxed on a basis which took into account the similarity between the issues in this application and those in application number W 136 of 1999.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs. The costs are to be taxed on a basis which takes into account the similarity between the issues in this application and those in application number W 136 of 1999.

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

CARR J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: CARR J

Full text does not contain this section.