Specialist in Australian Immigration, Migration Consultant and Online Australian Visa Assessment Service.
Australian Immigration Specialists - Australian Immigration Consultants Online Australian Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia
  Research Home

Categories
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Federal Court
Federal Magistrates Court
Full Federal Court
High Court
Migration Review Tribunal
Other Jurisdictions
Refugee Review Tribunal
Recently Added
Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (6 September 2001)
Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] HCA 43 (9 September 2004)
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal; Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30

"Use the Migration Specialists that migration agents use"
Cases

1 This is an appeal by Mr Gui Rong Wu ("the appellant") from a judgment of Sackville J of 10 October 2002 dismissing an application under s 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) seeking writs of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari in respect of the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal of 4 March 2002. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs ("the Minister") that the appellant was not entitled to a Change of Circumstances (Residence) class AG (sub-class 806-Family) visa. While Sackville J determined that the Tribunal had erred in several respects, including denying the appellant procedural fairness, the appellant was unsuccessful because of the operation of s 474 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This conclusion was reached because his Honour was bound to give effect to the judgment of the Full Federal Court in NAAV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228 concerning the reach of s 474.

Wu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] F

Wu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 81 (6 May 2003)
Last Updated: 9 May 2003


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 81



CORRIGENDUM

GUI RONG WU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 1143 OF 2002

MOORE, EMMETT & BENNETT JJ

SYDNEY

6 MAY 2003 (CORRIGENDUM 9 MAY 2003)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA



NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 1143 OF 2002




BETWEEN:
GUI RONG WU

APPELLANT


AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & INDIGENOUS & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT


JUDGE:
MOORE, EMMETT & BENNETT JJ


DATE OF ORDER:
6 MAY 2003


WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY





CORRIGENDUM

1. On page 1 of the Reasons for Judgment, in paragraph 1 in the first line of text, delete "Mr" and insert "Ms".

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justices Moore, Emmett & Bennett JJ.




Associate:

Dated: 9 May 2003


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 81


GUI RONG WU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 1143 OF 2002

MOORE, EMMETT & BENNETT JJ

SYDNEY

6 MAY 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA



NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 1143 OF 2002




BETWEEN:
GUI RONG WU

APPELLANT


AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & INDIGENOUS & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT


JUDGES:
MOORE, EMMETT & BENNETT JJ


DATE OF ORDER:
6 MAY 2003


WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY




THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT THAT:

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The orders made by the trial Judge be set aside.

3. A writ of certiorari issue to quash the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal dated 4 March 2002.

4. A writ of mandamus issue requiring the Migration Review Tribunal to determine the application according to law.

5. The respondent pay the appellant's costs of the proceeding in the Court below and the appeal as agreed, totalling $12,391.50.

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
N 1143 OF 2002




BETWEEN:
GUI RONG WU

APPELLANT


AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & INDIGENOUS & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT




JUDGES:
MOORE, EMMETT & BENNETT JJ


DATE:
6 MAY 2003


PLACE:
SYDNEY





REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:

1 This is an appeal by Mr Gui Rong Wu ("the appellant") from a judgment of Sackville J of 10 October 2002 dismissing an application under s 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) seeking writs of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari in respect of the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal of 4 March 2002. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs ("the Minister") that the appellant was not entitled to a Change of Circumstances (Residence) class AG (sub-class 806-Family) visa. While Sackville J determined that the Tribunal had erred in several respects, including denying the appellant procedural fairness, the appellant was unsuccessful because of the operation of s 474 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This conclusion was reached because his Honour was bound to give effect to the judgment of the Full Federal Court in NAAV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228 concerning the reach of s 474.

2 Since his Honour gave judgment the High Court has determined the meaning and effect of s 474 (at least for present purposes) in Plaintiff S517 v the Commonwealth [2003] HCA 2. It would appear that as a result of considering the judgment of Sackville J and the judgment of the High Court, the parties have reached agreement that the appellant should succeed. The basis upon which this agreement has been reached was summarised in a letter from the Minister's solicitor of 2 May 2003 which provides, in material respects:

We enclose consent orders signed on behalf of the parties allowing the appeal with costs.
The parties consent to the appeal being allowed on the following basis:

1. The learned trial judge was correct in finding there was a denial of natural justice.

2. That denial of natural justice amounted to a jurisdictional error such that the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") was not protected by section 474 of the Migration Act 1958 ("the Act").

3. Given the decision in Plaintiff S157 v Commonwealth [2003] HCA 2, the learned trial judge erred in holding that the Tribunal's decision, in so far as it was affected by the error referred to in paragraph 2 above, was protected by section 474 of the Act.

4. The Tribunal erred in its application of the definition of "special need relative" in regulation 1.03 of the Migration Regulations 1994 by "requiring the applicant to show serious circumstances in addition to establishing that the need for assistance is comparable to that of disabled or chronically ill persons" (paragraph 29 of his Honour's reasons for judgment).

The respondent does not concede that the error referred to in paragraph 4 above was a jurisdictional error.


3 Having regard to Sackville J's reasons and the reasons of the High Court in Plaintiff S517 v the Commonwealth (supra), the concession of the Minister that there was jurisdictional error justifying relief in the appellant's favour is correct. Accordingly we propose to make orders allowing the appeal and issuing writs of certiorari and mandamus.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Moore, Emmett & Bennett JJ.




Associate:

Dated: 6 May 2003

Counsel for the Applicant:
Mr T Reilly






Solicitor for the Applicant:
Christopher Levingston & Associates






Counsel for the Respondent:
Mr S Lloyd






Solicitor for the Respondent:
Blake Dawson Waldron






Date of Judgment:
6 May 2003


Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia