Long Fei Li v Minister for Immigration & Anor (Corrigendum)

Case [2006] FMCA 667


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
Humayun v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCAFC 35

NAKX v Minister for Immigration [2003] FCA 1559
Uddin v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 841

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

  1. The application for reinstatement is dismissed.

  2. 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:

  1. Ms Griffin, appearing for the respondents, objected to previous orders being set aside on a number of grounds.

Amend paragraph 19 to read:

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
Long Fei Li v Minister for Immigration & Anor (Corrigendum) [2006] FMCA 667
Case
[2006] FMCA 667
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Long Fei Li, the applicant, sought to challenge a decision made by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) concerning the cancellation of his Student Subclass 571 Visa. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and the MRT were the respondents in this matter, which was heard by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the application for reinstatement of the proceedings, dismissed for non-appearance, should be granted.

The legal issues revolved around the application for reinstatement of the proceedings that were dismissed for non-appearance and the merits of the application. The court was required to determine whether the applicant's failure to appear at the hearing was excusable and whether the application for reinstatement was sufficiently particularised and identified any jurisdictional error. The court also needed to consider whether the applicant had provided a valid reason for non-attendance and whether the application was made within the appropriate time frame.

The court found that the applicant's original application was seriously defective, as it did not identify any jurisdictional error and was vague and unparticularised. The applicant was provided with an opportunity to rectify the situation at the first directions hearing, but failed to attend. Additionally, no attempt was made to notify the court officers or the respondents' solicitors of his inability to attend. The court dismissed the application for reinstatement and ordered the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs and disbursements of and incidental to the reinstatement application, fixed in the sum of $1,000.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.