IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No NG 68 of 1995 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: LI-CHUNG CHANG Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent Coram: Davies J. Date: 22 March 1995 Place: Sydney REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EX TEMPORE This application has been brought by Mr Chang against the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Those are the only two parties named in the application. The decision sought to be reviewed is described as the failure of the Minister to decide that Mr Chang's visa was valid. There is before me a copy of a letter to Mr Chang dated 10 January 1995 which advised that there were grounds for the cancellation of Mr Chang's visa because of his being expelled from his course of education on 16 November 1994, which constituted a failure by Mr Chang to meet his course requirements. The letter advised that the visa was cancelled on 10 January 1995. That decision cancelling the visa is not a matter which is within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. It is a decision which is reviewable by the Immigration Review Tribunal and is a matter which, at this stage, is described in s.475 of the Migration Act 1958 as a non-judicially reviewable decision. It follows that any review must first be a review by the Immigration Review Tribunal. Decisions of the Immigration Review Tribunal are reviewable by the Federal Court but primary decisions are not. Section 485 of the Migration Act provides that the Court does not have any jurisdiction except under the Migration Act to review non-judicially reviewable decisions. Mr Chang said in his oral argument that he desired the Federal Court to take over a number of cases. He has handed up a description of them. They appear to be, inter alia, a case brought by himself against the Australian Centre for Language Pty Limited for refund of tuition fees, a case brought against the Institute of Commerce Pty Limited, a case in which Mr Chang is charged with maliciously destroying or damaging property, a case in which the defendant is a Mr John Wilson and in which there is a claim of breach of a contract and a case in which a Mr Paul Abela is also said to have breached a contract. There are other cases of a similar description set out in another document which Mr Chang has also handed up. Apparently these are cases which have been instituted in the Local Court. They are all matters which, on their face, are not within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Mr Chang has issues which he wishes to raise with respect to what occurred at the University at which he studied and at educational establishments which played a part in his study. But those matters are matters which arise under State law and they are matters for the State courts of New South Wales. They are not matters within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. For these reasons the application will be dismissed. I certify that this and the 2 preceding pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Davies. Associate: Date: 22 March 1995 Appearing for the Applicant: Li-Chung Chang (in person) Solicitor for the respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of hearing: 22 March 1995 Date of judgment: 22 March 1995