Jianzhu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 981

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Jianzhu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 981 Migration Act 1958, ss 54, 56, 476(1)(a), (c) and (e) Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2 clauses 131.213(3), 131.222(1) 'A' v Pelekanakis (1999) 91 FCR 70 Turner v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 35 ALR 388 Hoare v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 348 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 180 ALR 1 HUANG JIANZHU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS V 1055 OF 2001 SUNDBERG J 7 AUGUST 2002 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 1055 OF 2001

BETWEEN: HUANG JIANZHU

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SUNDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER: 7 AUGUST 2002

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 1055 OF 2001

BETWEEN: HUANG JIANZHU

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SUNDBERG J

DATE: 7 AUGUST 2002

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND 1 The applicant is a Chinese national who on 20 November 2000 applied for a class AD (Business Skills (Migrant)) subclass 131 (investment-linked) visa ("the investment visa"). The applicant provided numerous documents in support of his application. On 23 July 2001 the Australian Consulate General Hong Kong Migration Office wrote to the applicant to inform him that his application was being considered but that it was necessary for him to provide further information. The applicant purported to comply with this request on 23 August 2001. 2 The Minister's delegate refused the applicant's investment visa application on 18 September 2001. Section 66 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") provides that the Minister need not give written reasons why a criterion was not satisfied or a provision of the Act or Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) ("the Regulations") prevented the grant of an investment visa or any other visa that cannot be granted while an applicant is in the migration zone. Despite s 66, the applicant was sent a copy of the delegate's decision record which noted the reasons why the delegate had determined that the requirements of the investment visa had not been satisfied. 3 The applicant seeks review of this decision by the Court pursuant to Part 8 of the Act. The decision is not one capable of review by the Migration Review Tribunal as it does not fall within s 338 of the Act. The Court's jurisdiction to review is derived from s 486 of the Act.