Hu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1006

Hu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1006

Even assuming that one or both impugned decisions were affected by the alleged errors, relief should be refused as a matter of discretion. The first applicant obtained the visa on the basis of a proposal to develop a Sydney car battery assembly business, abandoned that proposal by July 2002, did not inform DIMIA of the radical change or of his infrequent visits to Australia until interviewed six months later, and thereby engaged in disentitling conduct. The second applicant's position depended on the first applicant's statutory entitlements and was no better in discretionary terms.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Visa Cancellation and Refusal to Revoke Cancellation / Federal Court Application for Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed, with costs.
Legal Topics
['subclass 457 Business (long Stay) Visa' 'independent Executives Visa' 'cancellation of Visa' 'revocation of Cancellation' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'discretionary Refusal of Relief']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['subclass 457 Business (long Stay) Visa' 'independent Executives Visa' 'cancellation of Visa' 'revocation of Cancellation' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'discretionary Refusal of Relief']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Visa Cancellation and Refusal to Revoke Cancellation / Federal Court Application for Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the decision to cancel the first applicant's Subclass 457 visa under ss 116 and 128 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was affected by jurisdictional error." 'Whether the decision not to revoke the cancellation under s 131 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was affected by jurisdictional error or denial of natural justice.' 'Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to grant relief if jurisdictional error were established.' "Whether cancellation of the first applicant's visa affected the second applicant's dependent visa under s 140 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)."]

Ratio Decidendi

Even assuming that one or both impugned decisions were affected by the alleged errors, relief should be refused as a matter of discretion. The first applicant obtained the visa on the basis of a proposal to develop a Sydney car battery assembly business, abandoned that proposal by July 2002, did not inform DIMIA of the radical change or of his infrequent visits to Australia until interviewed six months later, and thereby engaged in disentitling conduct. The second applicant's position depended on the first applicant's statutory entitlements and was no better in discretionary terms.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed, with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed, with costs.']