Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
He v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1167 HAI QING HE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N389 of 2001
MADGWICK J 9 AUGUST 2001 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N389 of 2001
BETWEEN: HAI QING HE
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER: 9 AUGUST 2001
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs. 3. The respondent be granted leave to file and serve within 14 days any application for costs against any other party he sees fit. 4. Any application for costs against a third party be listed for directions on Thursday 23 August 2001 at 9:30am. THE COURT DIRECTS THAT: 1. The applicant need not be present at any further directions or hearing in relation to costs in this matter.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N389 of 2001
BETWEEN: HAI QING HE
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MADGWICK J
DATE: 9 AUGUST 2001
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (revised from transcript) HIS HONOUR: 1 This is an application for an order of review pursuant to Part 8 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), given on 30 March 2001, which affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister refusing the applicant the grant of protection visa.
Background 2 The applicant is a young man who arrived in Australia on 23 May 1998 on a student visa which was due to and did expire on 15 March 2000. The day before that expiry, the applicant applied for an extension of his student visa, apparently unsuccessfully. A week later, that is almost two years after his arrival in Australia, the applicant lodged a protection visa application claiming to be a political refugee from China. 3 A delegate of the respondent Minister refused the application on 2 June 2000 and a fortnight later the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. The applicant provided no further information than was before the delegate with his application for review by the Tribunal, and that application included only the observation that he would
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