Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Zhong v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 507
MIGRATION – where Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation sent pursuant to s 107 – whether a notice issued under s 107 must assert that the delegate or Minister considers the visa holder has not complied – whether the delegate had concluded the appellant did not comply with the requirements of the Act before sending a notice pursuant to s 107 – whether the notice was sufficiently particularised – whether the Tribunal was required to specifically consider reg 2.14(k) – appeal allowed. Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 101, 107, 109 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) reg 2.41 Gidaro v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1998) 83 FCR 139 cited NAWZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 199distinguished Tien v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (1998) 89 FCR 80 cited Uddin v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 149 FCR 1cited Zhou v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 139 FCR 60 cited WEI ZHONG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 1467 OF 2007
LANDER J
21 APRIL 2008
ADELAIDE (HEARD IN SYDNEY) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1467 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: WEI ZHONG
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: LANDER J DATE OF ORDER: 21 APRIL 2008
WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be allowed. 2. The order of the Federal Magistrates Court made on 6 July 2007 be set aside and in lieu thereof: (a) there be an order quashing the decision of the second respondent made on 11 May 2006; (b) there be an order remitting the applicant's application for review of the decision made by the delegate of the first respondent on 30 July 2003 to the second respondent for hearing according to law; (c) the first respondent pay the applicant's costs. 3. The first respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
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