Bing Zhao v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[1999] FCA 958

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bing Zhao v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 958

BING ZHAO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 200 OF 1999

DRUMMOND J
2 JULY 1999
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 200 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	BING ZHAO LINA RAN Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	DRUMMOND J
DATE OF ORDER:	2 JULY 1999
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 200 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	BING ZHAO LINA RAN Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	DRUMMOND J
DATE:	2 JULY 1999
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant did not appear at the hearing.  I will proceed under O 32 r 2(1)(d) the Federal Court Rules.

2. I have read the reasons of the Refugee Review Tribunal and Mr Bing Zhao’s submissions filed 2 June 1999 in compliance with directions given by the Court, which are marked as exhibit 1.

3. It seems to me that his reliance on the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Office of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, January 1992 is quite misplaced.  Mansfield J, in Lakhbir Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (unreported, 4 April 1997), said:

   “In my view, whilst the use of the Handbook might be of assistance of occasions, it does not prescribe a matter of domestic law.”

4. That is the answer to many of the attacks made on the decision below.

5. There is also an allegation of actual bias.  The applicant says he clearly told the Tribunal member at the end of the hearing that he was not satisfied with the hearing conducted by him and did not think that he was provided with a fair opportunity to say what he wanted to say.  The Tribunal member, in the reasons, confirms that that very matter was raised.  However, it records that it then invited the applicant to make any oral submissions which he then may have wanted to make, and thereafter lodge any written submission that he might wish to make with the Tribunal.  Over a week elapsed between the hearing and the decision being handed down:  no further submissions were received.

6. Having regard to the full way in which the Tribunal member addressed the relevant considerations, the conclusions he reached and the absence of any substance in the matters raised by the applicant in his written submissions for thinking there is an reviewable error in the decision, I dismiss the application.

7. There being no reason why the usual rules should not apply as to costs, I will order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Drummond.

Associate:

Dated:             2 July 1999

No appearance by the applicant.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms F Backman
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	2 July 1999
Date of Judgment:	2 July 1999