Ting v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1209

Ting v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1209

Mr Ting failed to meet visa condition 8202 as certified by his education provider. The Migration Review Tribunal affirmed cancellation and committed no jurisdictional error. The Federal Magistrate did not err in refusing to set aside the Tribunal decision. Reinstatement and extension of time for appeal were refused as the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal / Application to Reinstate Proceeding and Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application to reinstate proceedings and for extension of time refused
Legal Topics
['visa Cancellation' 'jurisdictional Error' 'extension of Time' 'student Visa Conditions']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Appeal / Application to Reinstate Proceeding and Extension of Time to Appeal

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Ting breached visa condition 8202' 'Whether there was jurisdictional error by the Migration Review Tribunal' 'Whether the applicant’s appeal has reasonable prospects of success' 'Adequacy of Federal Magistrate’s reasons for decision']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Ting failed to meet visa condition 8202 as certified by his education provider. The Migration Review Tribunal affirmed cancellation and committed no jurisdictional error. The Federal Magistrate did not err in refusing to set aside the Tribunal decision. Reinstatement and extension of time for appeal were refused as the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Application to reinstate proceedings and for extension of time refused

Orders

  • ["The order sought on the applicant's notice of motion of 9 November 2005 is refused." 'The applicant pay to the first respondent her costs of the notice of motion.']