Truong v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1380

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Truong v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1380 MY HIEM TRUONG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS VID 419 OF 2005

NORTH J 30 AUGUST 2005 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 419 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: MY HIEM TRUONG

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: NORTH J

DATE OF ORDER: 30 AUGUST 2005

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. That the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. 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 VID 419 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: MY HIEM TRUONG

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: NORTH J

DATE: 30 AUGUST 2005

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Before the Court is an appeal against a decision of Federal Magistrate McInnis delivered on 15 April 2005. The Federal Magistrate dismissed an application for the review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') dated 28 August 2003. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of the delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, to refuse to grant the appellant a spouse visa. 2 The appellant, who is a citizen of Vietnam, married Mr Ngo in Vietnam on 25 May 1998. Mr Ngo is an Australian citizen who was born in Vietnam. The appellant applied for a spouse visa on 30 June 1999 and the nominator was Mr Ngo. A temporary spouse visa was granted on 25 May 2000, and the appellant came to Australia shortly afterwards to take up residence with her husband. 3 On 23 October 2002 a delegate of the respondent refused to grant the appellant a permanent spouse visa. In part, the delegate acted on the basis that the appellant had failed to respond to several requests for further information about her case. Apparently the appellant had relied upon a relative to provide further information and that relative had failed to pass on the delegate's letters to her. The issue before the Tribunal was whether the appellant satisfied the provisions of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) ('the regulations') for the grant of a subclass 100 spouse visa.