Lee v Minister Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship [2013] FCA 854

Lee v Minister Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship [2013] FCA 854

The applicant nominated as the person seeking to satisfy the primary criteria in clause 1104B(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) must personally satisfy clause 892.215; the note under clause 892.2 does not permit another family unit member's compliance to substitute for that applicant's shortfall.

Parties
First Appellant: CHAE HEE LEE; Second Appellant: MYUNG KYU KIM; Third Appellant: MIJUNG KIM; Fourth Appellant: WOOMIN KIM; First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND CITIZENSHIP; Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Visa Eligibility, Statutory Interpretation
Migration Law Judicial Review Visa Eligibility Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHAE HEE LEE

First Appellant

MYUNG KYU KIM

Second Appellant

MIJUNG KIM

Third Appellant

WOOMIN KIM

Fourth Appellant

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary criteria for a Subclass 892 visa under the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) must be satisfied by the applicant nominated as the primary applicant
  2. 2 Proper construction of clause 892.2 and clause 892.215 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant nominated as the person seeking to satisfy the primary criteria in clause 1104B(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) must personally satisfy clause 892.215; the note under clause 892.2 does not permit another family unit member's compliance to substitute for that applicant's shortfall.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed
  • The appellants are to pay the first respondent's costs, fixed in the sum of $6,270