Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kim v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 815
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 33 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 359, 359A, 359B, 359C, 360, 360A Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) sch 2 cl 442 GI SUK KIM & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 318 OF 2004 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 25 JUNE 2004
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 318 OF 2004
BETWEEN: GI SUK KIM
FIRST APPLICANT
JU YEO SUH
SECOND APPLICANT
JUN HEOK SUH
THIRD APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER: 25 JUNE 2004
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the 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 N 318 OF 2004
BETWEEN: GI SUK KIM
FIRST APPLICANT
JU YEO SUH
SECOND APPLICANT
JUN HEOK SUH
THIRD APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: SACKVILLE J
DATE: 25 JUNE 2004
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application pursuant to s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), challenging a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal ('MRT') handed down on 30 January 2004. The MRT affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent ('Minister') that the applicants were not entitled to the grant of Educational (Temporary) (Class TH) visas. 2 There are three applicants, the primary visa applicant and her two children. Since the children's position is dependent on that of their mother, I shall refer to her simply as 'the applicant'. 3 The application filed in this Court was prepared by a solicitor. However, he subsequently filed a notice of withdrawal and the applicant appeared without legal representation. She filed no written submissions. 4 The applicant claimed in her oral submissions that she had not received certain letters sent by the MRT and that she had believed that she would receive notice of a hearing before the MRT. I explained that I could deal with factual claims of this kind only if she gave evidence of them. The applicant accordingly elected to give evidence and was cross-examined by Mr Lloyd, who appeared for the Minister. I refer to the applicant's evidence later.
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