Du v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1299

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Du v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1299 JIANG DU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS & ANOR N348 OF 2003 EMMETT J 31 OCTOBER 2003 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N348 OF 2003

BETWEEN: JIANG DU

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

DIMITRA PSIROUKIS

in her capacity as a delegate of the First Respondent

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 31 OCTOBER 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. the application be dismissed; 2. the applicant pay the first respondent's costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N348 OF 2003

BETWEEN: JIANG DU

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

DIMITRA PSIROUKIS

in her capacity as a delegate of the First Respondent

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE: 31 OCTOBER 2003

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 24 May 2001, a student visa was granted to the applicant. The visa was valid up to 15 March 2002. On 16 November 2001, the applicant was notified of the intention on the part of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ('the Minister'), to consider cancelling the visa. On the same day, the applicant applied for a new student visa. 2 On 8 January 2002, the applicant attended an interview with a delegate of the Minister, and was given a second notice of intention to consider cancelling his visa. On 17 January 2002, he attended a further interview, and on that day, a decision was made to cancel the existing visa. On 21 January 2002, the applicant applied to the Migration Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') for review of the decision of the Minister's delegate to cancel his existing visa. On 2 April 2002, the Tribunal made a decision setting aside the decision to cancel the visa. 3 On 22 January 2002, a decision was made by a different delegate of the Minister to refuse the application for a new visa that had been made on 16 November 2001. The applicant commenced a proceeding in the High Court of Australia for prerogative writ relief in respect of the decision to refuse the application for a new visa. That proceeding was commenced on 28 May 2002. 4 On 6 February 2003, Gaudron J ordered that the further proceedings in the application to the High Court be remitted to this Court, and that the application proceed in this Court as if the steps already taken in the High Court had been taken in this Court. The proceeding remitted by the High Court to this Court is now before me for hearing.