Xie v Immigration Department

Link copied
Case Copied 36 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Xie v Immigration Department [1999] FCA 365

IMMIGRATION – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – motion to dismiss proceeding generally as disclosing no reasonable cause of action – applicant out of time in lodging application for review of Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision – whether any other reviewable decision – whether sufficiently clear that applicant was an unlawful non-citizen – whether respondent required to remove applicant as soon as reasonably practicable, without any decision being involved – whether application should be permitted to go to trial – conflicting evidence in departmental records – applicant held temporary entry permit at one stage – was eligible for permanent entry permit – no present evidence of having applied for permanent entry permit – departmental records indicating (wrongly on respondent’s case) that Bridging Visa issued to applicant at another stage – complex legislative and regulatory regime – applicant unlikely to succeed at trial – but not sufficiently clear that case against applicant must fail – need for exceptional caution to be exercised before striking out application – motion dismissed.

Federal Court Rules Order 20 r(2)(1)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 6(1), 8(1)(d), 8(3)(c)(i), 13, 14(2),(3), 20(1),(5),(5A), 22(1), 47, 198(6), 430, 478
Migration Legislation Amendment Act (No 59 of 1989), s 6(2)(a), (b)
Migration (1989) Regulations, reg 119E, 119H
Migration Regulations (Amendment) Regulations (Statutory Rules 1990 No 1) reg 18
Migration Reform Act 1994
Migration Regulations (Amendment) Regulations (Statutory Rules 1990 No 237) regs 22, 23, 38

Migration (1993) Regulations Parts 437.52, 815.512, 815.521, 815.721

Migration Reform (Transitional Provisions) Regulations (Statutory Rules 1994 No 261) regs 4, 5, 10, 16
Migration Regulations reg 5.02

Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 applied
Pathmanathan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Full Court, 14 May 1998) followed

XIE WEI MING v IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT
WG 172 of 1998

CARR J
PERTH
1 APRIL 1999


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WG 172 of 1998

BETWEEN:

XIE WEI MING
Applicant

AND:

IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT
Respondent

JUDGE:

CARR J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 APRIL 1999

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The time for filing and service of the respondent’s notice of motion filed on 19 February 1999 and the supporting affidavit of Peter John Corbould sworn on 19 February 1999 be extended to 24 February 1999.

2.The respondent’s abovementioned motion be dismissed.

3.The applicant’s motion filed on 10 March 1999 be dismissed.

4.Costs be reserved in each motion.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WG 172 of 1998

BETWEEN:

XIE WEI MING
Applicant

AND:

IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT
Respondent

JUDGE:

CARR J

DATE:

1 APRIL 1999

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. This is a motion on notice filed by the respondent on 19 February 1999 seeking orders that the applicant’s application for an order of review be dismissed, under Order 20 rule 2(1) of the Federal Court…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Xie v Immigration Department 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
[1999] FCA 365
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Xie v Immigration Department involved the applicant, Xie, who sought judicial review of the decisions made by the respondent, the Immigration Department, regarding her immigration status. The dispute centred on the respondent's refusal to grant the applicant a subclass 850 visa, which is a partner visa for a person who is an Australian citizen. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around the interpretation and application of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the relevant visa criteria. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the respondent’s decisions were lawful and whether there were any jurisdictional errors or errors of law made by the respondent in refusing the visa application. Additionally, the court examined whether the applicant had a legitimate expectation of a favourable outcome based on the assurances provided by the Department.

In addressing these issues, the court found that the respondent had acted within its lawful authority and had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and policy guidelines in refusing the visa application. The court rejected the applicant's argument that there was a legitimate expectation of a favourable outcome, as the assurances provided did not amount to a binding commitment. Furthermore, the court held that the respondent's decisions were not flawed by any jurisdictional errors or errors of law. Consequently, the motions filed by both parties were dismissed, and costs were reserved in each motion.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The time for filing and service of the respondent’s notice of motion filed on 19 February 1999 and the supporting affidavit of Peter John Corbould sworn on 19 February 1999 be extended to 24 February 1999.

2. The respondent’s abovementioned motion be dismissed.

3. The applicant’s motion filed on 10 March 1999 be dismissed.

4. Costs be reserved in each motion.

Note:

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.