Lu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 181

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 181 BIN LU & ORS v THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N935 OF 2003 EMMETT J 5 FEBRUARY 2004 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N935 OF 2003

BETWEEN: BIN LU

FIRST APPLICANT

XUE XUE LI

SECOND APPLICANT

RONG BANG LU

THIRD APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 5 FEBRUARY 2004

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT: 1. DECLARES that the application for review lodged with the Migration Review Tribunal on behalf of the applicants on 27 August 2002 was given to the Tribunal within the time limited by s 347(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958; 2. ORDERS that the respondent pay one-half of the applicants' costs of the proceeding. 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 N935 OF 2003

BETWEEN: BIN LU

FIRST APPLICANT

XUE XUE LI

SECOND APPLICANT

RONG BANG LU

THIRD APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE: 5 FEBRUARY 2004

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The first applicant arrived in Australia on 12 July 2001 pursuant to a subclass 457 visa issued under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act'). He was accompanied by his wife, the second applicant, and his infant child, the third applicant. The second and third applicants also travelled to Australia on subclass 457 visas. On 12 March 2002 a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs ('the Minister'), decided to cancel the visas of the applicants. On 27 August 2002 the applicants lodged an application for review by the Migration Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') of the delegate's decision. On 6 August 2003 the Tribunal made a decision that the application for review was 'ineligible' because the review application was not lodged within the prescribed period for applying for review. The applicants now challenge that decision in this Court by way of application for a prerogative writ of certiorai.