Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Yong v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1391 MIGRATION – student visa – claim of inflexible application of policy – form of notification of reason for refusal of grant of visa – determination of matters relevant to decision – appropriate educational level for visa applicant.
Migration Regulations 1994: 560.224(1)(d)
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 162 ALR 577 referred to Chen Shi Hai v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2000) 170 ALR 553 referred to Sagnata Investments Ltd v Norwich Corporation [1971] 2 QB 614 referred to British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610 referred to XIAO SHAO YONG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS V 134 of 2000 GOLDBERG J 2 OCTOBER 2000 MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 134 of 2000
BETWEEN: XIAO SHAO YONG
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: GOLDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER: 2 OCTOBER 2000
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 134 of 2000
BETWEEN: XIAO SHAO YONG
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: GOLDBERG J
DATE: 2 OCTOBER 2000
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction 1 The applicant applies for an order of review pursuant to Pt 8 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") in respect of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in Beijing on 25 January 2000 to refuse the applicant's application for a Student (Temporary) Class TU Visa (Subclass 560 Student Visa). The delegate decided that the applicant had not met the requirements of Regulation 560.224(1) of the Migration Regulations 1994 ("the Regulations") and had therefore failed to meet a prescribed criterion for the grant of a visa Subclass 560. Accordingly, the delegate, pursuant to s 65 of the Act, refused the applicant's application.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate