Li v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1098

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Li v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1098 IMMIGRATION – appeal from Federal Magistrates Court – refusal to grant appellant permanent spouse visa – no error in Tribunal decision Li v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FMCA 454 referred to Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 6 FCR 155 referred to XIAO YING LI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL VID 456 OF 2007

KENNY J

3 august 2007

MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 456 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: Xiao Ying Li

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: KENNY J DATE OF ORDER: 3 August 2007

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to 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 456 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: Xiao ying li

Appellant

AND: minister for immigration and citizenship

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: KENNY J

DATE: 3 August 2007

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court. The appellant unsuccessfully sought judicial review following the refusal of a permanent spouse visa. 2 The appellant, Xiao Ying Li, is a citizen of the People's Republic of China. She married Mr Dinh Chuc Do, an Australian citizen, in China on 1 March 2001. On 6 March 2001, Ms Li lodged a combined visa application for a temporary and a permanent partner visa. On 8 February 2002, she was granted a temporary partner visa. She arrived in Australia on 23 March 2002. 3 On 29 October 2004, a delegate of the first respondent refused her application for a permanent spouse visa following an interview on 3 September 2004. The delegate stated: "I am not satisfied that the Applicant and Sponsor have truthfully represented their meeting and decision to marry. I am not satisfied that the Applicant and Sponsor share important information to a level that would be expected in a genuine relationship. I am not satisfied that the Applicant and Sponsor currently reside together in a spousal relationship. I contend that this relationship has been contrived from the outset for the purposes of obtaining Permanent Residency for the Applicant, and that the Sponsor is assisting her for reasons unknown."